Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.
I have given you two options. If you are so concerned, than make the debate yourself with your rules I have to accept. Problem solved. If not, we are not going to have a debate.
Don't engage with omar, trust me, it's not worth. He prolly doesn't even know his statement is irrelevant because you just joined yesterday. Welcome to DART.
>>One more Round means one more Round of arguments.
I prefer my method of 4 rounds, because 3 is too short, and 5 is too long for these types of debates with multi-faceted arguments. Like I said, If you wish for it to be 5 you have the freedom to challenge me to a debate under your own conditions. Not that complicated.
lol i'm not making an argument, I'm merely saying this is how I've been doing debates. I forfeit round 1, you forfeit round 5. Same amount of forfeits, so in effect, it is a 4 round debate. 3 is too short and 5 may be too long with these types of long, multi-faceted debates, so I prefer 4. If you don't want to accept, then you make the debate and I will accept, just keep it within the gun topics at hand. You can make the rules no forfeiting then.
I prefer 4 round debates. A lot of good debaters use that rule, including Alec who is #1. You don't have to rebut in the first round. Just make your arguments against guns.
Wrick says "Con expressly admits to being a Christian and having Christian values. This concedes the debate topic. No further arguments changed this and therefore the argument point goes to con."
Everybody knew I was Christian. Omar knew that before the debate. The topic of the debate is to prove I have **political beliefs based on Christianity.** Not that I am Christian and have Christian values. I do not concede and do not consent to this supposed "concede," therefore the vote is insufficient.
"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about. "
There is no need to carry an automatic rifle in public because semi-auto's are enough. If in the wrong hands, and can cause a lot more deaths than semi-autos.
You can not carry around tanks in public. People normally don't get shot in their car. Guns are effective because they are easy to carry and a deterrent for criminals.
Concealed-carry is a great idea because they are 84% more law-abiding than police officers. They are the most law-abiding group. Taking away the 2.5M DGU's a year for them is wrong. Why take away guns which would then prevent law-abiding owners to protect themselves. Criminals get their guns illegally most of the time and then you would have no way to defend yourself. Gun bans have not been effective in decreasing murder rate in places like Ireland, Jamaica, England, and Australia, to name a few main ones. Germany took away gun's in the 20's. Look what happened. A government tyranny where people weren't able to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny.
Automatic guns are not legal for normal citizens, and I think it should stay that way. You can get a special permit for it though. So they are not fully illegal. I'm not for making them legal because if in the wrong hands it can be used to kill a lot more people than a semi-auto.
>>Yes and giving violent criminals more of an effective way of being violent.
We have background checks.
>>Mass killing can be done with a gun so not an argument against tanks.
Guns are more sophisticated and more controlled. Tanks would kill innocent people.
>>How do you know which one is the criminal with a gun?
wym confused
>>There are roads. You won't be using a tank on a pavement.
It is very unlikely you will get attacked on the road. This isn't my primary argument, it is when you are in public not driving. What will you use when you are not in the tank and in public? A gun. What if you are in a church service? A gun. Btw you can own a tank in some states in the U.S, but they are not legal on roads.
You just proved tanks are slow. They can barely go 60 in a short amount of time. 25 is their typical speed.
>>With a gun it would imply you are defending yourself. Still have yet to see an argument against tanks.
My main argument is defending yourself in public. Not in a vehicle when you are driving. Your vehicle is enough to drive away or use as weapon itself.
>>Carry on cherry-picking data to suite your narrative. I much rather stick to the topic at hand instead of what you are doing which is pivoting.
What is cherry-picked? We won't get anywhere with the tanks. I am for concealed-carry in public so you can defend yourself in public. This has always been my primary argument.
Since that is your weird opinion, why suggest banning certain guns based on this since we don't know the numbers?
It is clear guns are very effective in deterring crime. 2.5 DGU's a year. In Vermont, the state where you don't even have to have a permit to carry, it is the safest state in the nation. As concealed carry has been going up by the thousand's a year, violent crime has dropped 50% during that time.
Generally guns are more effective from deterring violent criminals than karate chops.
>>If you justification is that it is ineffective is a lie. A tank can withstand a ton of damage while you being protected by it while also being capable of massive amounts of damage. It is extremely effective at keeping the user alive while also dealing massive amounts of damage. I want you to give me an argument against not making tanks legal.
This is silly. This would just be mass killing. How do you know which one is the criminal? How would this be effective when you are walking around public? What if you are an cashier at a store or bank?
>>Tanks are easier. Simply drive around in your tank. You don't need to put in a waistband.
First, they are very slow. Ineffective transportation method. Plus this would imply you are only defending yourself from your car.
>>I am not even going to argue against this because for one no evidence and for two it hasn't got anything to do with the argument at hand. Drop this and go back to defending guns by itself.
It does have evidence, what do you mean. Concealed-carry has everything to do with self-defense. So you concede. I want you to type you concede. Hypocrite LOL
It's not just guessing like the flat earth. People know their situations and what the criminal was doing.
How else will you find data of how many actually saved lives? Survey's are the closest thing to it. 2.5 Million DGU's should be enough of a statistic that tells you guns save far more lives than they take.
Those people were in their situation and knew what would have happened if they hadn't used their gun defensively. The margin of error calculates for people who are wrong. I took the very low end of it. Do you really think 96% of people are wrong about their situation? Very unlikely. Think of what would have happened if they weren't able to defend themselves. That would be a lot of violent crime and murder.
Survey's are used to collect information on almost every subject. Saying survey's are invalid is a very poor argument because they are a fairly accurate representation of reality. This is just being foolish.
OK, we won't anywhere with the guns kill people thing. I'll stick with self-defense.
Tanks are justifiably illegal. You don't need a tank to defend yourself, and it would be extremely ineffective. Guns are effective easy to defend yourself with. In concealed or open carry u typically carry a handgun on your waistband. I am for legalizing concealed-carry in more places. Vermont has the most lax gun laws, you don't even need a permit to carry, but they are the safest state in the nation.
>>Why not have more control of something that can impact your more important value life?
I don't know what you are saying here. I assume you are continuing to lead me into your trap that guns should be banned because they kill people. False point.
Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.
I have given you two options. If you are so concerned, than make the debate yourself with your rules I have to accept. Problem solved. If not, we are not going to have a debate.
You making a debate I take it?
Don't engage with omar, trust me, it's not worth. He prolly doesn't even know his statement is irrelevant because you just joined yesterday. Welcome to DART.
>>One more Round means one more Round of arguments.
I prefer my method of 4 rounds, because 3 is too short, and 5 is too long for these types of debates with multi-faceted arguments. Like I said, If you wish for it to be 5 you have the freedom to challenge me to a debate under your own conditions. Not that complicated.
All my method does is shrink it by one round. If you are unhappy, then make a debate with your rules and I will accept. Either way will work.
lmao nice vote
Just warning you, comment wars with Omar can get vicious. Cautioning you to engage.
:(.
lol i'm not making an argument, I'm merely saying this is how I've been doing debates. I forfeit round 1, you forfeit round 5. Same amount of forfeits, so in effect, it is a 4 round debate. 3 is too short and 5 may be too long with these types of long, multi-faceted debates, so I prefer 4. If you don't want to accept, then you make the debate and I will accept, just keep it within the gun topics at hand. You can make the rules no forfeiting then.
Wrick posted a new vote, which was what i was referring to when I said to remove it. Perhaps you missed it.
I prefer 4 round debates. A lot of good debaters use that rule, including Alec who is #1. You don't have to rebut in the first round. Just make your arguments against guns.
Wrick says "Con expressly admits to being a Christian and having Christian values. This concedes the debate topic. No further arguments changed this and therefore the argument point goes to con."
Everybody knew I was Christian. Omar knew that before the debate. The topic of the debate is to prove I have **political beliefs based on Christianity.** Not that I am Christian and have Christian values. I do not concede and do not consent to this supposed "concede," therefore the vote is insufficient.
Nope. That's how I've always done debates.
2 hours to remove it
The sources rules are awful. Chang the DART rules.
Can you plz vote on this pllzzz
why don't u fix the sourcing rules they are broke rn
but this vote is apparently ok?
"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about. "
In one of my debates saying websites are not good is a justification four sources. We will see if it holds up against the terrible voting rules.
I have plenty of evidence. Will make a debate.
There is no need to carry an automatic rifle in public because semi-auto's are enough. If in the wrong hands, and can cause a lot more deaths than semi-autos.
Can you vote on this?
XD lol
You can not carry around tanks in public. People normally don't get shot in their car. Guns are effective because they are easy to carry and a deterrent for criminals.
Concealed-carry is a great idea because they are 84% more law-abiding than police officers. They are the most law-abiding group. Taking away the 2.5M DGU's a year for them is wrong. Why take away guns which would then prevent law-abiding owners to protect themselves. Criminals get their guns illegally most of the time and then you would have no way to defend yourself. Gun bans have not been effective in decreasing murder rate in places like Ireland, Jamaica, England, and Australia, to name a few main ones. Germany took away gun's in the 20's. Look what happened. A government tyranny where people weren't able to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny.
Automatic guns are not legal for normal citizens, and I think it should stay that way. You can get a special permit for it though. So they are not fully illegal. I'm not for making them legal because if in the wrong hands it can be used to kill a lot more people than a semi-auto.
>>Yes and giving violent criminals more of an effective way of being violent.
We have background checks.
>>Mass killing can be done with a gun so not an argument against tanks.
Guns are more sophisticated and more controlled. Tanks would kill innocent people.
>>How do you know which one is the criminal with a gun?
wym confused
>>There are roads. You won't be using a tank on a pavement.
It is very unlikely you will get attacked on the road. This isn't my primary argument, it is when you are in public not driving. What will you use when you are not in the tank and in public? A gun. What if you are in a church service? A gun. Btw you can own a tank in some states in the U.S, but they are not legal on roads.
You just proved tanks are slow. They can barely go 60 in a short amount of time. 25 is their typical speed.
>>With a gun it would imply you are defending yourself. Still have yet to see an argument against tanks.
My main argument is defending yourself in public. Not in a vehicle when you are driving. Your vehicle is enough to drive away or use as weapon itself.
>>Carry on cherry-picking data to suite your narrative. I much rather stick to the topic at hand instead of what you are doing which is pivoting.
What is cherry-picked? We won't get anywhere with the tanks. I am for concealed-carry in public so you can defend yourself in public. This has always been my primary argument.
Since that is your weird opinion, why suggest banning certain guns based on this since we don't know the numbers?
It is clear guns are very effective in deterring crime. 2.5 DGU's a year. In Vermont, the state where you don't even have to have a permit to carry, it is the safest state in the nation. As concealed carry has been going up by the thousand's a year, violent crime has dropped 50% during that time.
>>Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?
Generally guns are more effective from deterring violent criminals than karate chops.
>>If you justification is that it is ineffective is a lie. A tank can withstand a ton of damage while you being protected by it while also being capable of massive amounts of damage. It is extremely effective at keeping the user alive while also dealing massive amounts of damage. I want you to give me an argument against not making tanks legal.
This is silly. This would just be mass killing. How do you know which one is the criminal? How would this be effective when you are walking around public? What if you are an cashier at a store or bank?
>>Tanks are easier. Simply drive around in your tank. You don't need to put in a waistband.
First, they are very slow. Ineffective transportation method. Plus this would imply you are only defending yourself from your car.
>>I am not even going to argue against this because for one no evidence and for two it hasn't got anything to do with the argument at hand. Drop this and go back to defending guns by itself.
It does have evidence, what do you mean. Concealed-carry has everything to do with self-defense. So you concede. I want you to type you concede. Hypocrite LOL
It's not just guessing like the flat earth. People know their situations and what the criminal was doing.
How else will you find data of how many actually saved lives? Survey's are the closest thing to it. 2.5 Million DGU's should be enough of a statistic that tells you guns save far more lives than they take.
False equivalency.
Those people were in their situation and knew what would have happened if they hadn't used their gun defensively. The margin of error calculates for people who are wrong. I took the very low end of it. Do you really think 96% of people are wrong about their situation? Very unlikely. Think of what would have happened if they weren't able to defend themselves. That would be a lot of violent crime and murder.
Survey's are used to collect information on almost every subject. Saying survey's are invalid is a very poor argument because they are a fairly accurate representation of reality. This is just being foolish.
Can you vote on this?
U gonna respond to my comment?--
"The study was on all guns, you read it. Show me the source where it says the study was only on handguns.
3.) It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument."
wut lol
OK, we won't anywhere with the guns kill people thing. I'll stick with self-defense.
Tanks are justifiably illegal. You don't need a tank to defend yourself, and it would be extremely ineffective. Guns are effective easy to defend yourself with. In concealed or open carry u typically carry a handgun on your waistband. I am for legalizing concealed-carry in more places. Vermont has the most lax gun laws, you don't even need a permit to carry, but they are the safest state in the nation.
It is the person that does the killing. My gun doesn't jump out and shoot you. Neither does my rock fly magically and stone you.
Tanks are illegal in most cases and you typically can't carry a tank on your waistband.
do wut
O i'm on fire rn
wait there's 54 days left lmao i was thinking of another debate now i should stop stressing haha im dumb
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns provide self-defense for law-abiding owners.
Even though he is leftist, he is a pretty fair voter, and it's the only chance I have.
maybe 1 more coming...
You haven't voted on this debate. 2 days left!
Even most people on both sides can admit he is an intellectual and a great debater. He is one of the best to ever live.
lol ur not getting away w/ that xD
>>Why not have more control of something that can impact your more important value life?
I don't know what you are saying here. I assume you are continuing to lead me into your trap that guns should be banned because they kill people. False point.
Wrick just copied and pasted pinkfreuds vote. I reported it.
>>I don't see your messages for some reason even though you had me as a receiver.
u prolly rage blocked me XD jk
OK. I value life over guns.
The study was on all guns, you read it.
3.) It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument.
And nah im going debating protestors haha
Now if you would excuse me for a couple hours, I'm actually going to a Trump rally lmao