CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Not at all. But give a person a spoon and ice cream, they will get fat. Put a drunk person in a car, they will start to drive and will crash. You write down a strong argument and people will read and agree, or feel very shocked.
You give a murderer a gun, he will kill. You don't give all these people things, they won't get fat, drink-drive, write controversial things, or shoot people.
Ha! If one wishes to debate sensibly you can't just argue vaguely, then people take advantage of you. But I am busy currently, I will have to get back to you.
No I add detail to it. Guns left to their own devices don't kill people. But if you use a gun, it is the gun and the mechanism that has worked to end the persons life. The person did it, and by human law they are guilty.
Think, if Gavrillo Princep did not have a gun, would have saved us all a lot of shit!
But it is sooo simple! If people don't have guns, they're not gonna get bombs or chemical warfare to kill the person they wanted to in the heat of the moment. true they could get a knife or a rock, but you can't ban knives or rocks as they are used for other things. The soul purpose of a gun, is to kill.
No, you intentional switched words, changing the entire meaning of your argument in a completely dishonest way.
But it is sooo simple! If people don't have guns, they're not gonna get bombs or chemical warfare to kill the person they wanted to in the heat of the moment.
Wow, you have reduced heat of the moment death. How many have you saved?
The soul purpose of a gun, is to kill.
Or to shoot people. Some people have to die for the greater good. Like bad guys. You have not demonstrated how taking away guns from people who will not harm anyone with them will prevent death from the people who will use them to harm others.
The amount of people that kill their wife/husband/boss/friend/randomer out of a sudden bout of rage is considerably high. And besides, even if we save one persons life, that's good?? Oh wait no, all you industrialists care nothing of the little man, your own necessities are more important.
And what sort of an arsehole says " Some people have to die.."
Can't you just put them in jail?? Who are you to decide who has the right to die or not? How can I argue with someone who says "Killing is bad, unless you kill bad people". Oh wait, you never said killing was bad.
Eventually everyone has to die. Anyone who will kill people before they can be arrested needs to be killed, right? We can't put them in jail, they will kill before that is possible.
you never said killing was bad
Yeah, I am a terrible person. Your philosophy is killing is bad unless it is done with something other than a gun, then it is ok.
Yes but if you give someone prone to murdering people a gun, what do you think they will do. Think, if you have a murderer with a gun, and a murderer with no gun, which one will kill more the fastest?
Maybe the guy without the gun has a bomb. Maybe the guy with a gun only kills people he doesn't like. We can't determine the speed with the information you provide.
Honestly, that's your excuse as to why people without guns are more dangerous? " They might have a bomb."? Think about it, I will out it very simply for you as you still don't get it.
People who shoot other people shot them with guns.
People who didn't shoot other people, didn't have guns.
im not even gonna bother writing correctly now your arguments are just too stupid. you don't explain how what my statement said was, as you said "pobviously incorrect." how is it obviously so? and you try to argue that people still shoot eachother without guns. obviously he had an anti tank missile. please your look at the photo below:
I explained why it is obviously incorrect because of the bomb argument. We have no idea how fast someone can kill just because they have a gun in their hand. I already explained it to you, thus it is obvious.
you try to argue that people still shoot eachother without guns
KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL. I am arguing that people can KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL without guns. Stop accusing me of talking about shooting. You are not in my league intellectually. If you can't follow along that is YOUR fault. Do not tell me what is invalid because you have no idea.
Actually, you have been half right. The problem is that you take your half correct statement and apply it to the argument which is talking about something else. Therefore, you go from half wrong to full wrong, congratulations.
There's a continuation problem there, the first statement was half right, so you could also apply it to the formulation. Much like a quadratic equation formula, the end result is can be positive or negative, they both work.
Right, but your argument is not a quadratic equation. You are saying because of A and B we conclude C which means that you are right. B is a correct statement, but A is not. Therefore C doesn't happen, and you are wrong.
And to go back to our original point, I suppose I was wrong about something you initially said I was half right upon.
Logic much?
Either I am right or not, make up your mind. In this debate I say that guns as machines do not kill people. Fact. Thus I am right. But people who shot people with guns, did so because they had a gun. Also a fact.
Either I am right or not, make up your mind. In this debate I say that guns as machines do not kill people. Fact. Thus I am right. But people who shot people with guns, did so because they had a gun. Also a fact.
These are true statements. But you equated shooting with killing which was incorrect. Then spiraled out of control to the point of being wrong.
I was entirely correct to do that. Ok I shall simplify it even further.
Normally when people shoot other people, it is to kill them. Police in your country have a very special line, they try to negotiate, and if not, then they use 'deadly force'. Here in Britain, like in the Woolitch thing ( bad spelling I know, petty things like that do not interest me..!) Like there, the police shot, but not to kill.
America, people shoot, they're serious. So yeah sometimes people shoot to injure, but arms manufacturers are always finding new ways to kill the most people effectively, not to injure them.
You finally presented something valid. I believe this is still a different issue, though. I think you are showing the real problem. The American culture of violence, which I don't think can be solved by removing guns.
Ahh, now you see I never said get rid of guns, you assumed by my objective views on guns, you assumed I wanted to rid them. No, I just call for tighter regulations. Or make them totally free for anyone to get as you all seem to want so much. Let me stress, the latter would be terrible!
But this has nothing to do with the argument, does it? No. Your persistent " I will disprove everything you say no matter what to get the upper hand" may work in a fight between four year olds, but here, nein. You try to tell me something I have said is wrong, when anyone, pro or anti guns will tell me " Yeah, of course it is true." Like if I tell you, people who shoot people with guns, did so because of guns." You will refute that, somehow. But really this is pointless, I don't know what your deal is with me I have yet to find out, but I get the sense we aren't going to be great buddies in the future.
Fine then we are in agreement. I am right and you are an incomprehensible imbecile. Glad we got it sorted. That's enough of that. T'was becoming tedious.
Why do people buy guns? Because they look cool? Perhaps, but mainly because guns are good at ending someones life. And that's exactly what they do. I am not saying get rid of them, just saying people shouldn't be allowed to parade around the streets with guns strapped all over them, it's stupid. However much your arguments infuriate me further I shall not bother to reply I have a very simple point, and that is, if you own a gun, you are more likely to shoot someone with it that someone without a gun. Feel free to reply whatever, make as many mistakes as you want. In fact I probably won't even read it.
You fickle, capricious, flip-flopping, two-timing, mercurial woman.
I am shocked I would find you here. Arguing that people are, in fact, responsible for the violence that is attributed to guns.
Did what we had mean nothing to you?
I admit that, at times, we seemed to have completely opposing views on things. But I always felt that there was an underlying respect for each other's closely held personal opinions.
I am just disappointed in you; I would never argue a view that I didn't personally hold to be true (not that I would fuck a dog).
After all the time we have spent together; to realize that you will just take the opposing position of any opinion that comes along and argue it, as best you can, regardless of your personal beliefs, just feels like a personal betrayal. I know I would never treat you in this way.
Because of you actions, I do not wish to communicate with you any further, you disputatious damsel.
Please do not comment on any debate that I have, and I will show you the same consideration.
You fickle, capricious, flip-flopping, two-timing, mercurial woman.
Should I take that as a compliment? :o
About the gun thing.
I don't think guns kill people, I have nothing against guns, I have something against people who wear them to work, school or other unnecissary places to bring a gun.
I admit that, at times, we seemed to have completely opposing views on things. But I always felt that there was an underlying respect for each other's closely held personal opinions.
There still is :)
I am just disappointed in you; I would never argue a view that I didn't personally hold to be true (not that I would fuck a dog).
I'm a little confused.. to be frank. What is this about?
After all the time we have spent together; to realize that you will just take the opposing position of any opinion that comes along and argue it, as best you can, regardless of your personal beliefs, just feels like a personal betrayal. I know I would never treat you in this way.
I like to challenge myself as a debater, try to pick the opposite site that I actually think is the most logical, and see if I can defend on the side I think is wrong too. See?
But I didn't betray you. We debated about a different thing. Our debate was should people bring guns to work, this debate is about do guns kill people.
Different things, and I have different opinions about both.
You should not bring a gun to work, and guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Please do not comment on any debate that I have, and I will show you the same consideration.
Well.. that makes me sad. I will try to stay away from your debates, but it's gonna be hard. I rarely look who created the debate before I comment.
But I am a little confused. I don't know what you're so upset about.
No worries darling. I was just mucking about. I hadn't slept (still) haven't and was just a little wired.
I had thought you completely reversed you opinion about guns; but it didn't bother me.
I am all for anyone arguing any and or both sides of any topic.
I'll debate anything, if I think I can form a logical argument, regardless of my personal beliefs.
As to the bit you are a little confused about; you are the person I was arguing about beastiality with, right? If I confused that, I apologize for that comment. It was meant to be a reference that I hoped you help you realize I was trying to humorous.
The whole thing was meant to be making fun of people who go on a debate site and get all bent out of shape about petty things. Sorry, that it didn't land.
You are one of the people on here I actually enjoy debating with, and would welcome proving you wrong about anything.
Well that's what I thought, until I came to the part where you told me to never communicate with me again, that's when I thought you might be serious :)
Yeah, I'm a bit older, and used to being able to convey intent with voice inflection or visual cues.
I know you all that have been texting since before you could talk, attempt to solve this by putting smiley faces, or 'lol' or 'jk' after any statement that isn't meant to be taken literally, but I can't bring myself to do it. I feel it detracts from the subtly and richness of the English language, and comedy.
Yeah that is true.. but a simple ''I'm kidding'' or something would be nice.
I mean like you said, with voice you can make it clear you are being sarcastic or humerous. But since we can't do that with a text, people have found other ways to make it clear when they're joking, mad, happy, exciting or other emotions. And that is with smiley's.. or simply just clarifications of their emotion, like ''i'm so mad'' ''I'm joking'' .. you know?
I understand that, I just don't like it. Like I said I feel it strips a lot of elements from communication. I like saying completely outrageous things and see how long I can keep a straight face.
Or saying the exact opposite of what I mean, so that people who know me know I'm kidding but others think I'm a complete asshole. A '"I'm joking" after it would ruin it. But I take your point and I will try to come up with something ways to convey when I'm not being serious, that I can stomach.
I'm a pretty mellow guy, so if you see me say something horrific I'm more than likely kidding, or just trying to defend a terrible argument.
Guns, an item made with the sole intention of punching a hole through something with immense speed and from a distance. And volcanoes, which weren't created (this isn't a religious argument, IDists) but were formed because of magma currents playing with plates. Volcanoes kill people. Guns, however, don't?
I am opposing the idea that inanimate objects cannot kill people. Pencils are not made for misspelling words, any more than they are made for killing people.
Pencils do not misspell words, as they are not machines. Machines are complex enough to kill people, be the machine geological, biological, technical or mechanical.
A gun is not a machine, it is an equipment, a tool. It does not fire itself, it is being fired. When a detective searched for a killer, he can see on the gun if it has been fired, and by prints or other clues he can find out who fired it - this proves that guns are being fired, they do not fire themselves.
Volcanoes kill people, and a gun can also go off by itself- by accident. Guns are machines: "An apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task."
Humans made guns. Stop giving blaming an item for crimes human beings committed.
Sure, the gun can go off by an accident. But the quote ''Guns kill people'' wasn't made because .. how many people?? Ten pr. year TOPS are killed because of a gun accidentally fired.
So you're saying without guns it would be hard to kill people?
No, but it'd certainly be a lot harder.
Again, is it hard to get fat without a spoon?
Honestly it depends on your course of action, you could just down jugs of mayonnaise.
_
The point being is that these comparisons aren't valid. People use guns to kill people; but I've never heard of someone using alcohol so they can go drunk driving, or buying a spoon to go get fat. The point is that guns are sought to be used to a certain end, and when that end is killing someone, it's a lot smarter and easier of a choice than a knife or other weapon.
Stab, strangle, hit something hard in the head, poison.. I could go on.
The revolver was invented in early 1800, and if I'm not too wrong, the first gun was made somewhere in 1600 - I can assure you people had no hard time killing other people before this time.
Honestly it depends on your course of action, you could just down jugs of mayonnaise
Exactly, it is your actions that cause you gain weight. The mayonnaise doesn't accidentally end up in your stomach, you ate it.
People use guns to kill people
That is not what the gun was originally invented for. It was originally invented as a hunting tool. People have later on found it usable in other situation, such as murder. This doesn't change that originally the gun is for hunting, just as food isn't made for making people fat, it's made for making people satisfied from food.
The gun is for hunting.. what people use it nowdays does not change that.
Stab, strangle, hit something hard in the head, poison.. I could go on.
The revolver was invented in early 1800, and if I'm not too wrong, the first gun was made somewhere in 1600 - I can assure you people had no hard time killing other people before this time.
Right, but pulling a trigger requires the same if not less effort, and can be done in quick succession, with little potential error or self-endangerment. Comparatively, plenty easier than an old fashioned bludgeoning or strangling.
Exactly, it is your actions that cause you gain weight. The mayonnaise doesn't accidentally end up in your stomach, you ate it.
The thing is, this comparison didn't make sense in the first place. Spoons make it easier to get fat, but we don't seek to get fat when using a spoon, and a spoon isn't explicitly efficient for this goal even yet, as we agreed; yet many people seek to kill others with the use of a gun, for the aforementioned reasons. The motivation and proficiency are ignored factors.
That is not what the gun was originally invented for. It was originally invented as a hunting tool. People have later on found it usable in other situation, such as murder. This doesn't change that originally the gun is for hunting, just as food isn't made for making people fat, it's made for making people satisfied from food.
The gun is for hunting.. what people use it nowdays does not change that.
Whether or not guns were originally intended to hunt animals does naught to change the fact that they are used to kill, and in masses. There are those that use guns for hunting, yes, but still this doesn't change the reality, that they are excellent killing tools. And there are plenty of guns made for the intention of killing other people, but even that is beyond the point. Guns make it easy to kill people, and so people use them accordingly.
Right, but pulling a trigger requires the same if not less effort, and can be done in quick succession, with little potential error or self-endangerment. Comparatively, plenty easier than an old fashioned bludgeoning or strangling.
I'm sure you must not be familiar with guns, you've probably never pulled the trigger yourself, since you find it ''so easy''.
spoon isn't explicitly efficient for this goal even yet, as we agreed; yet many people seek to kill others with the use of a gun, for the aforementioned reasons. The
That is false, many people seek for a spoon in order to eat .. ice cream or stuff like that. Then they are using it as a tool to get fat.
There are those that use guns for hunting, yes, but still this doesn't change the reality, that they are excellent killing tools.
Well, many use knives for eating or chopping things with. That doesn't change the fact that knife is an excellent killing tool, and that is why all knife should be in one category, which is ''Killing tools'' ??? That doesn't make sense to me.
You make it sound like guns are the easiest way to kill somebody. First of all, it's not that easy to get your hands on a gun, unless you live in the USA - second of all, most murderers are NOT committed by a gun, they are committed by knives.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.
