1.) I disagree. There are more effective ways of deterring crime than banning guns. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.
2.) the study was about all guns, not handguns. You are wrong.
>>Those are surveys. That doesn't actually tell us if they saved lives or not, but rather people's opinions about it. Survey's are just opinions in the form of numbers. I guess we're playing family feud now.
So your only argument is surveys are not valid?? Very poor argument. Surveys are used to determine so much stuff. You have no evidence to discredit this. People know what happened in their situation. Since I was very conservative, I took away ALL of the "probably" people, and used the VERY LOWEST Margin of error. The validity is what margin of error is for. At the very lowest, 270,000 lives are saved. 12,000 are gun murders. It is very unlikely the lives saved by guns are lower than lives taken. I just calculated it, and 96% of people of my already extremely conservative numbers would have to be wrong about "almost certainly" saving a life for lives saved to be less than lives taken. This is just not probable, and your logic is flawed.
You also never responded to my concealed-carry point--I will copy and paste until u do, AND QUOTE ME WHEN U RESPOND
>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.
On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
QUOTE ME PLEASE I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY OTHER POINTS IF U DON'T QUOTE ME
>>I know you didn't say that. Your study said it. That's the problem.
So....what exactly is the problem? I'm still not getting your point. Handguns are the guns most used defensively. What exactly does this prove?
>>You're just stating that they meet said standard. That could be the case, but you're missing the point. If one of the guns did not meet the standard, you should be willing to ban it. That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't say ALL GUNS THAT ARE LEGAL RIGHT NOW because you can't possibly know if they actually all meet the standard and you should be ready to accept that if it becomes apparent.
No if's though, because all of them meet the standard. For example, I wouldn't want automatic guns legal. Those are banned though because they do not meet the standard.
You also never responded to my concealed-carry point--I will copy and paste
>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.
On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
>>Life over guns means that owning guns should be allowed up until the point that they threaten right to life. So if a gun has been shown to be too destructive and not sufficiently constructive, then it should be banned.
Trucks and cars threaten right to life all the time, when pedestrians are walking a car could easily run them over, on the freeway road a car could crash into you or do a head on collision.
>>Okay, so your study is only for handguns. That's a major issue. That means other weapons or even specific types of handguns do not apply to this study and therefore it's not enough data to support your conclusion.
I never said that. People have other types in your homes. It is for all guns, it just happens to be most are handguns.
>>My point is that we should only keep the specific models of guns that are deemed safe enough rather than tacitly clinging to the current norm.
All of the guns right now are safe. Which ones do you want to ban?
>>You do not have the right to pull the trigger simple because you feel threatened. That's like saying somebody is allowed to diminish free speech when it's offensive to somebody.
This is feeling threatened for your life, not threatened for Cindy's SJW safe space. I agree with you to an extent, which is you should brandish your gun first, but if you still feel threatened(like they do not go away or comply with what you are asking them to do), then you have the right to shoot them, maybe not to kill, but in the leg or in some way you don't feel threatened they could do something to you.
>>That's how you end up with a case like in Florida where a man chased down an innocent kid and killed him and got away with it because he felt threatened.
If you are chasing down a kid who is running away, then you shouldn't fire. I agree with you on this one.
>>If rocks were capable of killing a large group of people with ease, then yes, we should ban those rocks. But that's not the case, therefore rocks are not illegal. Btw, sometimes it could be illegal to have a rock because the situation implies that it was intended as a weapon. Like in jail for instance.
You never said the quantity. You just said "If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?"
Since rocks have killed people, they should be banned right? btw, of course, everything in jail is illegal. This is nonsensical. Since trucks and cars are capable of killing a large group of people at ease, should all those brand cars be banned? Also, with over 300 million guns, it would be impossible to gather all of them and many would flow into the black market, where criminals get them illegally. Since they get them illegally, it would be impossible to defend yourself since your right to defend yourself has been taken away.
>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.
On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
>>What if the criminal didn't have a gun and the defender did and then shot them? Was that a life saved? No.
Even though this is rare, let's go with it. Criminals don't have to have a gun to hurt people. They can use knives, fists, etc. If the innocent life feels threatened that the criminal is going to hurt them or their family, then e has every right to pull out a gun to deter the criminal, or if he feels threatened enough (ex. he does not know if the criminal has a gun or not, which is a common case) then he can shoot. We are talking about innocent lives saved, not the criminal. The criminal knew the choices and risks he was making when he walked into it.
>>If you're only holding onto them because they're legal, then you're appealing to tradition.
I'm not. I am holding on to them so people can defend themselves.
>>I find those numbers to be dubious. But let's just pretend that's the case just for fun.
The CDC conducted the study twice. Once in the late 90's, once in 2013. (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/)
>>Which guns did the saving? I'm willing to bet that over 80% of them were handguns.
Yes, and what is your point? Most carry laws only allow you to do handguns. They are lighter and easier to carry. It would be pretty strenuous to carry an AK on your back.
>>Also, the term saving is a little hyperbolic. The only way to really know if a gun saved somebody is if the person shot somebody or if the criminal outright said "I was going to rob her, but then I seen the gun and ran". I doubt the second one happens ever, so it would have to be the first one. If that's the case, then every case of a life being saved by a gun is also a case for hurting someone with a gun.
The second one is a very common case. Brandishing your gun is a top way to deter criminals.
>>Why every gun right now specifically? That seem like an appeal to tradition to me.
Because every gun right now has been legal for a long time and no gun is more dangerous than another. I don't understand your second sentence.
>>If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?
Guns save 2.5 million lives a year, far more than 12,000. So that is life over guns. Guns give you self-defense to protect yourself. Stripping away that right from law-abiding owners is wrong. People kill people, not guns. Question back at you--Should we ban every rock that violates the standard of the right to life even if rocks are legal?
>>Do you value harm over being able to carry guns?
This is concealed carry I assume. Concealed-carry people are the most law-abiding citizens in the country. They very rarely commit crimes and are extremely responsible. They commit 84% less crimes than police officers.
In addition, there are around only 12k gun murders in the U.S. Over 2.5 million lives are saved each year by guns. That's a huge difference, and it outweighs the negatives.
Gun bans are not effective. For example, in Britain where they banned guns murder rates spiked directly after the ban, and never went down to a level lower than the pre-ban rate. In Australia it was ineffective. Same with Ireland and Jamaica. In cities in the U.S. with the strictest gun laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., crime is top 10 in the nation. With the most lax gun laws in the nation in Vermont, where you don't even have to have a permit to carry, it is the safest state in America with a violent crime rate of 118 incidents per 100,000 state residents.
Gun bans would be ineffective in America because with over 300 million guns many would flow in the black market and make for illegal guns and crime. Taking guns away from law-abiding owners just because some stupid lunatic killed someone with a gun is unfair. People kill people, not guns. Facts, not feelings.
>>Yes but if we were being honest both sides of the opposite side can't be right. One side must be correct.
True, but that is what all the division is over. Who is correct. Both sides think they're correct, so it would be foolish to say who is right because that all comes down to personal opinion and that doesn't get us anywhere.
>>Yes but the majority of them use Region as the basis to do anything in life. Which means they valued emotion over facts. If it was a fact science would have proved the existence of God by know if the Bible was a good enough source to prove Yahweh's existence.
Christianity can be proven, but not in the typical ways you would think of. People have personal experiences with religion. Religion is not an emotion to an extent, with personal experiences you find out it is a fact. For example, a friend of mine worked for a Christian secret missionary organization, and they sent him to very dangerously minister to Afghanistan. While there, he instantly healed people's injuries with God's help. He also saw a women and God gave him a vision. He healed her back instantly. Before he approached her, God showed him a picture of the women's baby in heaven she aborted. He told the women gently that God showed him a picture of her your baby in heaven and God said that he forgives the women.
Science can't prove there is no religion either. Where did the big bang come from? Matter has to start somewhere. Therefore, it is very plausible a greater force is behind it and perfectly put us in place with the sun perfectly distanced and our cells and DNA perfectly in place.\
Religion is a cultural and lifestyle thing. You shouldn't attack it or make fun of it.
The thing is I have my facts and beliefs and you have your facts and beliefs, and failure to understand that both sides want a better America but have a different way of doing it is wrong. Conservatives use logic too.
I agree with the second amendment and not banning guns and allowing concealed-carry to be legal. Dismantle it.
>>Would you be bigoted to people stopping public healthcare which would help countless lives, use war as a profiting scheme and use immigration as a scapegoat to real problems of the US?
You see, that is the problem. There is a debate to be had on those things, and it is your opinion that it would help countless lives, but would it be effective? Would it drive down doctors? Would it be too expensive? You have to look at all the possibilities and notice their are differing opinions and facts.
"I do try to hear them out and show them how they are wrong but just like feelings over facts here just can't see how his positions are wrong. What am I supposed to do? Make the same point over and over again expecting a different result? You know that is insane right?"
What you fail to realize is that I think your positions are wrong as well. Both parties think the other one is wrong. It is all political opinions, and both sides can make good arguments. Both sides have their opinions and their evidence, and getting triggered that they don't change their mind is foolish. That's not how politics works.
"Are you tolerant of people with awful viewpoints?"
No, you should tell your protester liberal friends who just shout and do nothing productive that. You should also assault them since they are incapable of having an actual discussion.
"Conservatives believe in freedom of speech so you can say whatever you want. They also commit a special pleading fallacy where people who they don't agree they don't keep the stance of freedom of speech. I don't."
Who is doing this? It sounds like a liberal silencing college speakers.
The thing is those are short descriptions briefly explaining your beliefs. I haven't changed those in forever. Some of my beliefs needed changing or clarifying.
I wish you could've presented one thing without the DDO page. Really shows youare incapable of doing so. I'll you care about is winning the debate on technicalities, not a straw-man discussion.
Wrong. It is in the constitution and they are not the same things. They are both combined. (http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding-fathers-choose-a-republic/)
It is about the political realm tho. I have made my opening arguments that he is intellectual, but it is up to pro to prove he is anti-intellectual, not just put up a faint impersonation of him.
Virtuoso did not explain the conduct point according to the site rules. You didn't compare each other's conduct to each other or explain how it was unnecessary. Please take a look at his vote.
1.) I disagree. There are more effective ways of deterring crime than banning guns. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.
2.) the study was about all guns, not handguns. You are wrong.
>>Those are surveys. That doesn't actually tell us if they saved lives or not, but rather people's opinions about it. Survey's are just opinions in the form of numbers. I guess we're playing family feud now.
So your only argument is surveys are not valid?? Very poor argument. Surveys are used to determine so much stuff. You have no evidence to discredit this. People know what happened in their situation. Since I was very conservative, I took away ALL of the "probably" people, and used the VERY LOWEST Margin of error. The validity is what margin of error is for. At the very lowest, 270,000 lives are saved. 12,000 are gun murders. It is very unlikely the lives saved by guns are lower than lives taken. I just calculated it, and 96% of people of my already extremely conservative numbers would have to be wrong about "almost certainly" saving a life for lives saved to be less than lives taken. This is just not probable, and your logic is flawed.
You also never responded to my concealed-carry point--I will copy and paste until u do, AND QUOTE ME WHEN U RESPOND
>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.
On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
The study was for all guns. wdym
>>What if there was a gun right now that didn't meet the standard? Would you ban it?
can u define what "standard" u r talking about?
QUOTE ME PLEASE I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY OTHER POINTS IF U DON'T QUOTE ME
>>I know you didn't say that. Your study said it. That's the problem.
So....what exactly is the problem? I'm still not getting your point. Handguns are the guns most used defensively. What exactly does this prove?
>>You're just stating that they meet said standard. That could be the case, but you're missing the point. If one of the guns did not meet the standard, you should be willing to ban it. That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't say ALL GUNS THAT ARE LEGAL RIGHT NOW because you can't possibly know if they actually all meet the standard and you should be ready to accept that if it becomes apparent.
No if's though, because all of them meet the standard. For example, I wouldn't want automatic guns legal. Those are banned though because they do not meet the standard.
You also never responded to my concealed-carry point--I will copy and paste
>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.
On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
Please quote me when you are rebutting my points.
>>Life over guns means that owning guns should be allowed up until the point that they threaten right to life. So if a gun has been shown to be too destructive and not sufficiently constructive, then it should be banned.
Trucks and cars threaten right to life all the time, when pedestrians are walking a car could easily run them over, on the freeway road a car could crash into you or do a head on collision.
>>Okay, so your study is only for handguns. That's a major issue. That means other weapons or even specific types of handguns do not apply to this study and therefore it's not enough data to support your conclusion.
I never said that. People have other types in your homes. It is for all guns, it just happens to be most are handguns.
>>My point is that we should only keep the specific models of guns that are deemed safe enough rather than tacitly clinging to the current norm.
All of the guns right now are safe. Which ones do you want to ban?
>>You do not have the right to pull the trigger simple because you feel threatened. That's like saying somebody is allowed to diminish free speech when it's offensive to somebody.
This is feeling threatened for your life, not threatened for Cindy's SJW safe space. I agree with you to an extent, which is you should brandish your gun first, but if you still feel threatened(like they do not go away or comply with what you are asking them to do), then you have the right to shoot them, maybe not to kill, but in the leg or in some way you don't feel threatened they could do something to you.
>>That's how you end up with a case like in Florida where a man chased down an innocent kid and killed him and got away with it because he felt threatened.
If you are chasing down a kid who is running away, then you shouldn't fire. I agree with you on this one.
>>If rocks were capable of killing a large group of people with ease, then yes, we should ban those rocks. But that's not the case, therefore rocks are not illegal. Btw, sometimes it could be illegal to have a rock because the situation implies that it was intended as a weapon. Like in jail for instance.
You never said the quantity. You just said "If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?"
Since rocks have killed people, they should be banned right? btw, of course, everything in jail is illegal. This is nonsensical. Since trucks and cars are capable of killing a large group of people at ease, should all those brand cars be banned? Also, with over 300 million guns, it would be impossible to gather all of them and many would flow into the black market, where criminals get them illegally. Since they get them illegally, it would be impossible to defend yourself since your right to defend yourself has been taken away.
>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.
On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
>>What if the criminal didn't have a gun and the defender did and then shot them? Was that a life saved? No.
Even though this is rare, let's go with it. Criminals don't have to have a gun to hurt people. They can use knives, fists, etc. If the innocent life feels threatened that the criminal is going to hurt them or their family, then e has every right to pull out a gun to deter the criminal, or if he feels threatened enough (ex. he does not know if the criminal has a gun or not, which is a common case) then he can shoot. We are talking about innocent lives saved, not the criminal. The criminal knew the choices and risks he was making when he walked into it.
>>If you're only holding onto them because they're legal, then you're appealing to tradition.
I'm not. I am holding on to them so people can defend themselves.
>>I find those numbers to be dubious. But let's just pretend that's the case just for fun.
The CDC conducted the study twice. Once in the late 90's, once in 2013. (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/)
>>Which guns did the saving? I'm willing to bet that over 80% of them were handguns.
Yes, and what is your point? Most carry laws only allow you to do handguns. They are lighter and easier to carry. It would be pretty strenuous to carry an AK on your back.
>>Also, the term saving is a little hyperbolic. The only way to really know if a gun saved somebody is if the person shot somebody or if the criminal outright said "I was going to rob her, but then I seen the gun and ran". I doubt the second one happens ever, so it would have to be the first one. If that's the case, then every case of a life being saved by a gun is also a case for hurting someone with a gun.
The second one is a very common case. Brandishing your gun is a top way to deter criminals.
>>Why every gun right now specifically? That seem like an appeal to tradition to me.
Because every gun right now has been legal for a long time and no gun is more dangerous than another. I don't understand your second sentence.
>>If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?
Guns save 2.5 million lives a year, far more than 12,000. So that is life over guns. Guns give you self-defense to protect yourself. Stripping away that right from law-abiding owners is wrong. People kill people, not guns. Question back at you--Should we ban every rock that violates the standard of the right to life even if rocks are legal?
RPG's are not even legal. Every gun on the market right now should remain legal. I believe in background checks and stuff like that for regulation.
Your question is a trap that is irrational. Yes, I value life over guns. Rebut my claims now.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/759?open_tab=comments&comments_page=6&comment_number=39
Yes, I know. I'm making fun of RM because he always brags about how he's never got a vote removed from the site.
wym
HAHAHA u can stop braggin with your petty butt lmao
HAHA U GOT UR VOTE REMOVED LMAO
it's not lol just pointing it out cuz u know all these jew's be hella religious
of course a jew would accept lmao
stop trolling me
IK he gave you consent i just consented on his behalf
lol u troll
ik i went along with it
I have type 1 diabetes. Don't make fun of it. It is not even a mental thing so what you said is irrelevant.
You can cite statistics from a graph, a graph is just a way to show statistics in an easy way to understand.
>>Do you value harm over being able to carry guns?
This is concealed carry I assume. Concealed-carry people are the most law-abiding citizens in the country. They very rarely commit crimes and are extremely responsible. They commit 84% less crimes than police officers.
In addition, there are around only 12k gun murders in the U.S. Over 2.5 million lives are saved each year by guns. That's a huge difference, and it outweighs the negatives.
Gun bans are not effective. For example, in Britain where they banned guns murder rates spiked directly after the ban, and never went down to a level lower than the pre-ban rate. In Australia it was ineffective. Same with Ireland and Jamaica. In cities in the U.S. with the strictest gun laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., crime is top 10 in the nation. With the most lax gun laws in the nation in Vermont, where you don't even have to have a permit to carry, it is the safest state in America with a violent crime rate of 118 incidents per 100,000 state residents.
Gun bans would be ineffective in America because with over 300 million guns many would flow in the black market and make for illegal guns and crime. Taking guns away from law-abiding owners just because some stupid lunatic killed someone with a gun is unfair. People kill people, not guns. Facts, not feelings.
>>Yes but if we were being honest both sides of the opposite side can't be right. One side must be correct.
True, but that is what all the division is over. Who is correct. Both sides think they're correct, so it would be foolish to say who is right because that all comes down to personal opinion and that doesn't get us anywhere.
>>Yes but the majority of them use Region as the basis to do anything in life. Which means they valued emotion over facts. If it was a fact science would have proved the existence of God by know if the Bible was a good enough source to prove Yahweh's existence.
Christianity can be proven, but not in the typical ways you would think of. People have personal experiences with religion. Religion is not an emotion to an extent, with personal experiences you find out it is a fact. For example, a friend of mine worked for a Christian secret missionary organization, and they sent him to very dangerously minister to Afghanistan. While there, he instantly healed people's injuries with God's help. He also saw a women and God gave him a vision. He healed her back instantly. Before he approached her, God showed him a picture of the women's baby in heaven she aborted. He told the women gently that God showed him a picture of her your baby in heaven and God said that he forgives the women.
Science can't prove there is no religion either. Where did the big bang come from? Matter has to start somewhere. Therefore, it is very plausible a greater force is behind it and perfectly put us in place with the sun perfectly distanced and our cells and DNA perfectly in place.\
Religion is a cultural and lifestyle thing. You shouldn't attack it or make fun of it.
The thing is I have my facts and beliefs and you have your facts and beliefs, and failure to understand that both sides want a better America but have a different way of doing it is wrong. Conservatives use logic too.
I agree with the second amendment and not banning guns and allowing concealed-carry to be legal. Dismantle it.
You have my consent on sparrow's behalf.
>>Would you be bigoted to people stopping public healthcare which would help countless lives, use war as a profiting scheme and use immigration as a scapegoat to real problems of the US?
You see, that is the problem. There is a debate to be had on those things, and it is your opinion that it would help countless lives, but would it be effective? Would it drive down doctors? Would it be too expensive? You have to look at all the possibilities and notice their are differing opinions and facts.
"I do try to hear them out and show them how they are wrong but just like feelings over facts here just can't see how his positions are wrong. What am I supposed to do? Make the same point over and over again expecting a different result? You know that is insane right?"
What you fail to realize is that I think your positions are wrong as well. Both parties think the other one is wrong. It is all political opinions, and both sides can make good arguments. Both sides have their opinions and their evidence, and getting triggered that they don't change their mind is foolish. That's not how politics works.
"Are you tolerant of people with awful viewpoints?"
No, you should tell your protester liberal friends who just shout and do nothing productive that. You should also assault them since they are incapable of having an actual discussion.
Pretty hypocritical of you, considering you believe in physically assaulting people in public with whom your political beliefs don't align with.
"Conservatives believe in freedom of speech so you can say whatever you want. They also commit a special pleading fallacy where people who they don't agree they don't keep the stance of freedom of speech. I don't."
Who is doing this? It sounds like a liberal silencing college speakers.
I meant vote. And alec, oooooof
The thing is those are short descriptions briefly explaining your beliefs. I haven't changed those in forever. Some of my beliefs needed changing or clarifying.
Can you vote for me on this?
I wish you could've presented one thing without the DDO page. Really shows youare incapable of doing so. I'll you care about is winning the debate on technicalities, not a straw-man discussion.
Wrong. It is in the constitution and they are not the same things. They are both combined. (http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding-fathers-choose-a-republic/)
Dang. expanding my vocabulary. I still am confused. Explain wym.
Our country was never founded on a democracy. Our country was and always has been a democratic-republic.
lol we already have that in crazy AOC and her 96 trillion$ green new deal
It is about the political realm tho. I have made my opening arguments that he is intellectual, but it is up to pro to prove he is anti-intellectual, not just put up a faint impersonation of him.
lol ikr RM just floods all the debates, it's very annoying .
because the EC keeps power in check and let's minority voices be heard. It protects from mob rule which just gets corrupt.
lol i was joking
Virtuoso did not explain the conduct point according to the site rules. You didn't compare each other's conduct to each other or explain how it was unnecessary. Please take a look at his vote.
lol we wrote the same thing
Perhaps I would. I have learned my lesson not to engage with you tho.