Theweakeredge AMA

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.10.2020 06:04PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

No.

Blatantly, you are saying that all guns deaths are caused by school shootings, which is untrue.

According to the CDC:

All homicides
Number of deaths: 18,830
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.8
Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2018) via CDC WONDER
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 13,958
Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.3
Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2018) via CDC WONDER

And Car accidents and speeding is dangerous, which is why I advocate to up the age at which one can get their drivers licence as well as improving the testing system, I want to regulate the driving system.

Car and Speeding deaths are also a completely different beast from homicides, which is the percentage you should actually consider here

#32

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,261

11.10.2020 06:09PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Blatantly, you are saying that all guns deaths are caused by school shootings, which is untrue.

I didn't say that, but very little of the gun deaths are caused by "assault weapons" so banning them will do little to save people at best.

And Car accidents and speeding is dangerous, which is why I advocate to up the age at which one can get their drivers licence

What age would you set? Since your 16, I presume you don't drive.

Topic's author

#33

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.10.2020 06:15PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I'm not completely sure, 21 would be the best age, but 18 would be an acceptable compromise.

What I meant is that you only used statistics from school shootings. Also, automatics are really effective at killing people, the number of deaths per automatic used to deaths per almost any other kind of gun makes that apparent. It's how efficient they are at killing, not even the net death that I'm looking at. Also I never said what kind of regulations I was for, you just assumed you knew what I was going to say, which you didn't.

Speaking of which, are you even going to address my stats which totally prove yours incorrect?

#34

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,261

11.10.2020 06:26PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

I'm not completely sure, 21 would be the best age, but 18 would be an acceptable compromise.

Many people beyond this age die in accidents.

Also, automatics are really effective at killing people, the number of deaths per automatic used to deaths per almost any other kind of gun makes that apparent. It's how efficient they are at killing

Every gun is effective at killing. the question is how dangerous the gun is? The danger of anything is measured in how many people it kills.

Also I never said what kind of regulations I was for, you just assumed you knew what I was going to say, which you didn't.

I don't know your position on guns. If you want to end gun homicides, the only way this would even be possible is with banning all guns, which few people want and I don't want.

Your stats said that the homicide rate is around 5 per 100,000. This means in a given year, the odds of you being murdered by a gun are .005%. That's incredibly small. I think I'll take that chance.

I gotta go, I'll respond to your claims here and abroad in about a week. Have a good afternoon.

Topic's author

#35

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.10.2020 07:03PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I'm not completely sure, 21 would be the best age, but 18 would be an acceptable compromise.
Many people beyond this age die in accidents.

Sure, but people who are in their teens are at the highest risk for crashing or injury operating a vehicle: CDC notes:

"The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among teens aged 16–19 than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers in this age group are nearly three times as likely as drivers aged 20 or older to be in a fatal crash.2"

Also, automatics are really effective at killing people, the number of deaths per automatic used to deaths per almost any other kind of gun makes that apparent. It's how efficient they are at killing
Every gun is effective at killing. the question is how dangerous the gun is? The danger of anything is measured in how many people it kills.

Yes, but some guns are more effective at is, no, that isn't true at all. Handguns were used in maybe 64 to 84% of gun homicides, therefore they would of course have a higher kill count, but guns that are more effective at killing, are more dangerous. We should let the specially trained military personal handle them, not civilians. Need a source? This study notes:

Although 44% of persons wounded in active shooter incidents died of their injuries, irrespective of the type of firearm used, more people were wounded and killed in incidents in which semiautomatic rifles were used compared with incidents involving other firearms. Semiautomatic rifles are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines, and fire high-velocity bullets, enabling active shooters to wound and kill more people per incident.4

Also I never said what kind of regulations I was for, you just assumed you knew what I was going to say, which you didn't.
I don't know your position on guns. If you want to end gun homicides, the only way this would even be possible is with banning all guns, which few people want and I don't want.

Your stats said that the homicide rate is around 5 per 100,000. This means in a given year, the odds of you being murdered by a gun are .005%. That's incredibly small. I think I'll take that chance.

We should do what we can to minimize gun homicides while ensuring the rights of others, it isn't: The solution either cures all homicides by guns or it doesn't matter, that is absolutist. We want to save more people from this fate, and regulating guns, in general, will accomplish that.

Also, do you not know what, "Deaths per 100,000 population: 5" means? It means that per every 100,000 people of the 330,000,000 people who live in the US, 5 will be killed by a gun. That means 19,000 people or so will die to guns each year.

I gotta go, I'll respond to your claims here and abroad in about a week. Have a good afternoon.

Looking forward to it, stay safe, and thank you!

#36

Debates: 64

Posts: 126

11.11.2020 12:36AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

what do you think of me so far? I accept any and all criticisms.

Topic's author

#37

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.11.2020 12:40AM

-->

@Undefeatable

You have very convincing arguments, although some of them are more intuitively based than what they seem. My impression of you in general? Maybe one would presume that I would say arrogant or something, but I do think the nickname is mostly ironic, or at least that in a serious conversation you would admit people could beat you. At least I think. I think despite my earlier criticism that you really are a strong debater and that you have a fairly good grasp on the fundamentals of debate.

Now to ask in return, what do you think of me so far, I'll accept the same level of criticism as you did.

#38

Debates: 64

Posts: 126

11.11.2020 12:43AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

You seem excellent at philosophy type of ideas, that's why I looked up an expert's opinion, made it my own, and combated you with it (along with a dash of other research). I like how you're able to act pretty rationally, I checked on your first debate and seldiora was acting pretty crazy but you managed well. I personally got slightly mad at the implications of systemic racism being ignored so I kind of wasted my personal final round, haha. You probably have better control over actions, and your ideals seem grounded. You're a promising debater; I can tell why seldiora considered you better than intelligence in his "gauntlet tower" (if Whiteflame doesn't come around, as he said).

Topic's author

#39

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.11.2020 01:59AM

-->

@Undefeatable

Well thank you a ton, I'm glad to see it, a bit of familiarity in this site of primarily LD and Cross Ex debaters, philosophic arguments anyways. I try my best to act rationally, but that's really only because I use to act super irrationality. I looked at myself whenever quarantine started and I was like, "Huh... you say you're a debater, you should probably act like it." And then I changed :3

I guess so, but I definitely would've been angry in your position. In fact, sometimes I still have to pause, close my laptop, and walk away. Do something else, just because I know I won't be rational while I rebut the idea (Had to do that with Mopac and some transphobes a couple of times) I actually debated Intelligence, and I can see how he got to top 10, but I also see how you might think I'm better.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyways, thank you for being sweet and not tearing me to shreds like I half expected you to.

#40

Debates: 64

Posts: 126

11.11.2020 02:34AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

you're welcome LOL. I mostly try to tear debaters' arguments to shreds, not the debaters themselves. I've got nothing against fauxlaw even if he does believe the systemic racism is nonexistent (speaking of which, you should vote!), I just dislike the idea that the government itself isn't involved merely because of *lack* of policy.

Topic's author

#41

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.11.2020 02:38AM

-->

@Undefeatable

Definitely, social anxiety and all that, I have no idea how I can debate sometimes. But yeah, that's true: ideas not the people holding them. Also I'll see if I can vote on that, for longer ones I usually read through it once, read through it again while taking notes, read through again for extra notes and to ensure my notes were accurate. Then I summarize my notes into a rdf, then I go through the debate again to check if the rdf was accurate and not ship of theasus'ing anyone. Then I shorten and edit the rdf into a vote. So first I gotta finish my argument against free will, then I'll be doing the voting xD

#42

Debates: 64

Posts: 126

11.11.2020 02:43AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

also just curious, do I remind you of anyone on this site? I remember seeing some user that Oromagi's arguments were very similar to. I had switched my previous debate style (more similar to R1 of the Systemic Racism) to a structured argument (R2 of Systemic Racism). I just wanted to establish my overwhelming evidence to encourage fauxlaw to surrender, and double downed when he refused to give.

#43

seldiora

Debates: 158

Posts: 352

seldiora

11.12.2020 02:09AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

congrats you are now the most active user, how do you feel

Topic's author

#44

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.12.2020 02:50AM

-->

@seldiora

Over bloody worked. It's fecking great. Idk

12 days later

#45

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,261