I am calling out the number 1 on the leaderboard Alec

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 59
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,301
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Alec @Ramshutu
    I would enjoy debating you, but it would be too time consuming.  I have an AP Chem test coming up and I have to study for it.  I could debate you after May 9th.  I don't think I'll be #1 by then.  Ramshutu and oromagi are catching up to me fast.

    If there's a horse named VoteKing in tomorrow's Kentucky Derby, bet everything u got, cuz Ramshutu's pulling ahead. 

    Good luck in chemistry, May the 4th b w/ u.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @oromagi
    Thanks for the good luck.  On the practice exam, I got a 2, so I doubt I'll do well on the test.  I can still try.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Alec
    I'd be happy to debate you on Gun Control - provides I don’t have to take the ultimate extreme position on it (ie: pro gun control, not 100% anti-all-guns)
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Ramshutu

    Here is a look at his sources. I would debate him on that but I would have to put effort into finding sources that provide my point. If you already have sources you should be fine because the points he brought up well lets just say they are shite. See his sources used if you don't think they are shite. 

  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @Ramshutu
    If you were to debate me on Gun control starting May 10, what would your position be?  Would you want all AK 15s/AK47s banned?  Would you support someone with autism getting a gun?  Would you support universal background check(UBC) requirements for guns?  I can answer these questions personally:

    Question 1(AK 15s/AK 47s): No.  They provide protection against multiple criminals and a tyrannical government.
    Question 2(Autism): No.  I have autism.  I want a gun.  I don't want to do murder with it.  I want protection(https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1741) and maybe some hunting with it.
    Question 3 (UBC): I don't know too much about background checks, which is why I made a forum about it.  If a background check is what I think it is, then no.  I don't want the government knowing if I or anyone else has a gun.  Otherwise, they could conduct tyranny against the people who don't own guns.  An example that would appeal to liberals is the deporting of illegal immigrants and separating children at the border.  I am willing to admit that breaking up families is tyranny.  Would it happen if illegals had guns without the gov knowing to protect themselves?
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Alec
    Substantial additional gun controls, prohibitions on some ownership, buybacks, and attempt to substantially reduce the number of weapons legally owned, and increase the legal requirements and burden required to own and sell them.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @Ramshutu
    Substantial additional gun controls
    Can you be more specific?


46 days later

  • Mharman
    Mharman avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,301
    2
    4
    9
    Mharman avatar
    Mharman
    --> @Alec
    I think I will debate you on abortion sometine. Not now though.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @Mharman
    My new position on abortion that ought to be implemented nationwide.  Subject to change:

    Before 6 weeks: Legal on request.  The fetus has a heartbeat and brainwaves by then.  I could agree to a short term compromise of 8 weeks.

    6 weeks to viability (Around 20 weeks): Only legal if the mother has a strong chance of dying without abortion.  Rape victims should have gotten one earlier if they wanted one.

    After viability: No reason to get an abortion.  If threat to the mother's life, she can put the baby on life support paid for by insurance.  

    Hopefully, both sides can agree to this.  The left seems unwilling to ban it beyond 6 weeks even with the mother's life as an exception.  The left wants unrestricted abortion until 20 weeks, the Right wants to ban it altogether.  Hopefully, this is a compromise that the sides can agree too.

    The Left that loves Europe so much for being so progressive is unwilling to adopt their abortion policies into law.  The Roe Standard is 20 weeks.  The European standard is about 12 weeks.

  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Alec
    My new position on abortion that ought to be implemented nationwide.  Subject to change:
    Here is some change for you so please Read My Lips/Text:

    Keep Your Friggin Nose Out of a Pregnant Womans Bodily Business unless she asks you place your nose in her bodily business.

    Now that would a true moral change if you could even attempt to do that. You cannot because,

    1} you fear women or,

    2} because your a some kind of a religious fundamentalist or,

    3} because you want to hurt women  --i.e. have power over them--- in one way or another. Who knows what that my be a result of. 
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @mustardness
    I challenge you to a formal abortion debate.  Do you accept?

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    What about me?

    You did say you were going to debate me. 
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    What post did I say that?  We didn't agree to anything yet.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    I would enjoy debating you, but it would be too time consuming.  I have an AP Chem test coming up and I have to study for it.  I could debate you after May 9th.
    Post #3 here.

    So are you going to back down or change the "could debate you" to won't debate you? I would like a reason if you are backing down. 
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I'm not backing down.  What do you want to debate about?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    I'm not backing down.  What do you want to debate about?
    Border wall. You can start by not forfeiting Round 1. 

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    Other debates I have looked at that you have been apart of so you can simply use those arguments but better are:


  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I don't think I can win an argument against the border wall, but I could argue the death penalty.  Should I challenge you?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec

    "I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes."

     You are making me take the most radical position while you are not also. I would be against the death penalty in all cases but you are for the death penalty in one case. Make it like:

    should we value the death penalty? You take the position pro and my opponent takes the position as con. 

    Change it to you support the death penalty and I do not then I will accept. I think that is fair because we both would be arguing the philosophical grounds and if you want to argue with data as well. 

    Can you change the word count to at least 10,000 as well? 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    How about a debate about gender? I know your stance as in there are only 2 genders. I will take the other. Make sure to add definitions. 
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I think that is fair because we both would be arguing the philosophical grounds and if you want to argue with data as well. 
    What I'm worried about is I don't support the death penalty for all crimes.  I don't support it for stealing.  I don't support it for speeding.  I support the death penalty for murderers.  I think most people who claim to be against the death penalty are against it for murder as well as less serious crimes.  I don't feel too confident about a gender debate, although I can discuss it on a forum if you want.

    I changed the character limit to 7500.  I don't want to have to respond to a huge amount of text.
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    I challenge you ---Alec--- to do the following.  Obviously you cannot. So you lose again.

    Keep Your Friggin Nose Out of a Pregnant Womans Bodily Business unless she asks you place your nose in her bodily business.

    Now that would a true moral change if you could even attempt to do that. You cannot because,

    1} you fear women or,

    2} because your a some kind of a religious fundamentalist or,

    3} because you want to hurt women  --i.e. have power over them--- in one way or another. Who knows what that my be a result of. 

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    No this is what I want you to do to the description:

    Original
    "I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."

    New one
    "I support the death penalty. My opponent must be against the death penalty. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."

    In your arguments you can talk about the instances were you agree with the death penalty. I want that to be apart of the discussion not assumptions I am agreeing to debate you on. 
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Original
    "I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."

    New one
    "I support the death penalty. My opponent must be against the death penalty. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."
    What's the difference?  I sense a trap.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Alec
    What's the difference?  I sense a trap.
    The difference is I am not agreeing that you only have X amount of crimes you would want to have the death penalty for as an assumption before accepting the debate instead I will talk about it in the debate if you bring it up.