Ask him. He has the burden of proving these claims that he made up and don't make it the first argument in Round 1 a forfeit and the last argument in Round 5 a forfeit. Simply have the first Round be opening arguments and the rest can be rebuttals.
>>There is no need to carry an automatic rifle in public because semi-auto's are enough.
What if they are carrying semi-automatics? Is that enough?
>>If in the wrong hands, and can cause a lot more deaths than semi-autos.
False. It depends on the magazine. A full-automatic glock is not as capable of murdering more compared to an Ar-15 because an Ar-15 has 30 more rounds and the glock has 15.
Did you just completely avoid my numbers?
1)Evidence of concealed carry stats.
2)Tell me how taking guns from people is wrong.
3)Evidence that criminals get their guns illegally.
4)Evidence of gun ban not working in England or Australia. I would rather compare these two.
5)Evidence that Hitler got into power because their were no guns for citizens.
Not really too much said about the 2nd amendment.
>>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.
Not an argument against tanks. Automatic rifles are easy to carry and are deterrent to criminals. Are you for legalising automatic rifles?
>>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.
I can't take what you said here seriously. You make so much non-sequitur arguments to the aim of this entire paragraph which was concealed carry.
1)Evidence of concealed carry stats.
2)Tell me how taking guns from people is wrong.
3)Evidence that criminals get their guns illegally.
4)Evidence of gun ban not working in England or Australia. I would rather compare these two.
5)Evidence that Hitler got into power because their were no guns for citizens.
Not really too much said about the 2nd amendment.
>>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.
Not an argument against automatic rifles you just said "I think it should stay that way".
Background checks for tanks. Still have yet to get an argument against tanks.
>>Guns are more sophisticated and more controlled. Tanks would kill innocent people.
No they are not. It depends on the user.
>>wym confused
Your question was confusing. What did you mean with that question?
>>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.
Your argument don't make sense. You can't use a tank in public because they are illegal. So you advocate for having guns in Church? Saying tanks are legal in some states is not an argument against tanks.
>>You just proved tanks are slow. They can barely go 60 in a short amount of time. 25 is their typical speed.
What do you value more? Your life or speed?
>>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.
Okay then are you for making automatic rifles legal?
>>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.
I am not talking about this. I don't think you can read data or even understand cause and effect if you think Vermont is an example of concealed carry working if you mean by less crime or gun-related violence.
>>Generally guns are more effective from deterring violent criminals than karate chops.
Yes and giving violent criminals more of an effective way of being violent.
>>This is silly. This would just be mass killing.
Mass killing can be done with a gun so not an argument against tanks.
>>How do you know which one is the criminal?
How do you know which one is the criminal with a gun?
>>How would this be effective when you are walking around public?
There are roads. You won't be using a tank on a pavement.
>>First, they are very slow. Ineffective transportation method.
"Believe it or not, tanks can actually move at about 25 miles per hour on flat terrain and up to 45 miles per hour on roads! Some tanks have even gone as fast as 60 to 70 miles per hour for short periods of time."
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-fast-can-a-tank-move
So basically you don't have an argument.
>>Plus this would imply you are only defending yourself from your car.
With a gun it would imply you are defending yourself. Still have yet to see an argument against tanks.
>>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
This is a talking point of conservatives. I don't see the point of moving away from what this is about. 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.
>>OK, we won't anywhere with the guns kill people thing.
So you concede. I want you to type you concede on this point.
>>I'll stick with self-defense.
Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?
>>Tanks are justifiably illegal. You don't need a tank to defend yourself, and it would be extremely ineffective.
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.
>>Guns are effective easy to defend yourself with. In concealed or open carry u typically carry a handgun on your waistband.
Tanks are easier. Simply drive around in your tank. You don't need to put in a 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.
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.
I don't see your messages for some reason even though you had me as a receiver.
>>Your question is a trap that is irrational. Yes, I value life over guns. Rebut my claims now.
Trap?
Irrational?
I want those two answered before I carry on with my hypothetical. I am not rebutting your claims because you picked both options. I said you can only pick one and since you pick to answer my hypothetical we are either going to have a conversation about that or nothing at all here. Answer the questions I gave above if you actually want to speak more.
>>1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.
Why didn't you say that instead of saying "I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.".
>>2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.
You said you are "willing to give you data a chance.". This implies that you have to actually try to make an effort to even consider data as a way of finding out if a point is right or wrong.
>>3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.
The problem here is that even the distinction that you made that random news articles is too general. There are papers from professional's in their specific field like political commentators, economists etc. To say an opinion of an economist is not greater than the opinion which I am assuming is a non economist implied by this "If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent." is bad. A doctor gives his professional opinion on how to best treat you. A random person on the street is trying to sell you snake oil. You have implied that there opinions are the same even though one is more credible than the other. If this is not the case you clearly have shown the lapse of judgement to opinion pieces which are written by professionals in the specific field they are talking about.
I will repeat what I said again in hopes you will actually answer the question not talk about something based on an assumption okay?
Shouldn't have said harm but your assumption wasn't because of that problem so I will ask the question again.
Do you value life over guns?
If you don't want to answer this question then I will argue about what you assumed what I said.
So basically answer the question or ask me to rebut your claims that you made. Please don't pick both.
>>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.
It doesn't matter what both sides think if they don't follow the same standards in order to see how is right. When both have the same standards then both cannot be right if they are on opposing sides. For this reason it is not based on personal opinion instead who is right or wrong based on standards.
>>Christianity can be proven, but not in the typical ways you would think of.
The typical way is the right and the other way I think you mean personal experience is pseudo-intellectual. To have personal experience above facts is not rational.
>>People have personal experiences with religion. Religion is not an emotion to an extent, with personal experiences you find out it is a fact.
Anecdotes are anecdotal evidence. They show X person had X experience. This does not prove anything apart from X person had X experience. If you make the claim that he saw God or had an encounter with something out of this world the burden is on you to prove it but you can't like what many other Religious people who are unable to have a scientific basis for any of these claims. Whether they are too afraid of peer review or don't even think the best way to measure observable evidence which is science is not necessary.
>>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.\
Do you concede this is the begging the question fallacy?
>>Hmm. I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.
Wait what?
You accuse me of not effectively getting my point across but you tend not to even accept data.
>>I do accept hard data. So I'm willing to give you data a chance.
What? So basically it takes you time to even consider data to be a substantial way to make a point?
Do you do this with science when they provide evidence of the existence of the black hole? You would have to second-guess yourself and get out of your comfort zone.
If you can if you were being consistent what is the difference between data and sources?
You were asking for evidence before making those claims but now you are pretty much saying you tend to dismiss sources. Why even ask for data when you tend to dismiss it anyway?
>>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.
Yes but if we were being honest both sides of the opposite side can't be right. One side must be correct.
>>Conservatives use logic too.
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.
>>I agree with the second amendment and not banning guns and allowing concealed-carry to be legal. Dismantle it.
I need more than that so I ask more questions.
Do you value harm over being able to carry guns?
>>What you fail to realize is that I think your positions are wrong as well.
The problem here is that I used logic to get my conclusion not emotion. Give me something you agree with as a conservative and I will logically dismantle it.
>>Both parties think the other one is wrong. It is all political opinions
It is more than that when public healthcare can save lives, war profiteers are committing genocide in Yemen for money and immigration because Trump said so without evidence.
>>and both sides can make good arguments.
If we were really specific then yes but in most cases progressives are correct for improving situations not regressing.
>>Both sides have their opinions and their evidence, and getting triggered that they don't change their mind is foolish.
I hope the person I am debating follows logic as well. If they do and we are on opposing sides without agreeing on who won then one of us much have been illogical. We can't still be both right when we are taking opposing sides to an issue.
>>That's not how politics works.
I do know politics if filled with a bunch of liars doing anything to be president or make money.
>>and it is your opinion that it would help countless lives, but would it be effective?
Yes.
>>Would it drive down doctors?
Where would they go?
>>Would it be too expensive?
No. Taxes can cover it if the US increases taxes on European goods like what Yang says. I think I am correct on this.
>>You have to look at all the possibilities and notice their are differing opinions and facts.
Yes there are different opinions but if we agree on what we values most then one side would have the facts and the other would not or not enough to have a more substantial point. Lets say if we both value human life then the option is easy public healthcare. This will make sure everyone will be treated and it will be funded through taxes instead of being forced to pay with insurances or on the point of being treated.
>>First comment. Because that's literally what I said.
No I asked how am I a conservative?
>>The problem is that you're attributing something to somebody that wasn't based on individual merit. the moment that happens. You're committing bigotry.
>>You have a profile for "conservative" in your head and when someone fits the profile, you add all of the stereotypes to them.
You don't do the same when you know what kind of person you are talking to is?
>>Now if you want to live your life that way, then cool. But just know that you're participating in bigotry if you do.
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?
>>And insulting them is somehow more effective? Because people totally admit they're wrong when you insult them right?
They didn't before I insulted them and when they can't even make a sound argument against me. They frustrate me.
>>Back to the reason for the skirmish. If you say that you hear them out first, then we do you need to profile them in the first place?
"Profile them in the first place?" What do you mean?
>>If you're going to suspend your prejudice just long enough to know them, then you don't practically need the prejudice.
Yes when having a conversation where both parties are not lying to one another about both of them making reasonable arguments. Turns out feelings over facts thinks his arguments are sound but they are not.
>>So not only do you fail on moral grounds. You fall on tactical and semantic grounds as well.
Why can't I do something for the fun of it or make my stance clear that I don't like what you are doing therefore don't expect me to entertain your not well thought through ideas?
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?
>>Who is doing this? It sounds like a liberal silencing college speakers.
Is the college a publicly owned or privately?
If publicly why isn't the community around the college not allowed to have a say who they have on? Are you against students having a say in who is allowed to have a platform?
>>Pretty hypocritical of you, considering you believe in physically assaulting people in public with whom your political beliefs don't align with.
Justify. Why can't you take my actual position? If someone threatened your livelihood or income is that person justified to do what is necessary to make sure they can survive?
>>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.
You said I would assault people who I disagree with so why would I assault people who are on the same side?
Using their right to protest is not a productive. Why is that the case?
>>Surely you're not a slave to your emotions such that you have to stoop to someone else's level correct?
No but it is fun seeing what people will come up with as insults. Just want to see if any of them can create their own material. I found one saying I was still in grade school as an insult.
>>You're creating a stereotype of what a conservative is. It's like stereotyping atheism.
I am creating it from the majority where it is led by bad faith actors like Steven Crowder, PragerU, Ben Shapiro and Turning Point USA or at the very least idiots.
>>Conservative just means you want to change things as little as possible.
Which means if they were able to they would go back to slavery or a time when blacks were unfairly represented like there are now in criminal cases.
>>This leads to certain majority views, but being a conservative by no means forces anyone to act the way you're describing
Yes based on the majority view. I don't make claims about a groups based on a minority or someone who isn't follow what the movement represents.
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.
You can improve with time.
The only really thing you need to understand is how to formulate an argument.
Simple have a claim supported by evidence with an explanation.
Example:
IsaiahDUde543 is losing. The evidence is here https://www.debateart.com/debates/804. Looking at the votes Ramshutu has 20 and IsaiahDude543 has 12.
Make sure the evidence you use is proper. With mine I am able to link it to this debate but with others there is many opinion pieces that don't really present facts in their article. My advice is avoid opinion pieces as evidence and use sites like Quartz, PewResearch and most .org sites. They are either credible sources or actually provide links to their claims.
Lol. Athias blocked me. I'll block you as well. Just so show the same treatment back to you. All I have to do now is also become a bad faith actor. The thing is I have standards and I won't stoop that low to give you what you deserve. A taste of your own medicine. Hopefully someone else shames you for the fraud you are.
Remove the waiving from the rules and add Round 1 will only be opening arguments then I will accept.
It is wrap not rap.
Ask him. He has the burden of proving these claims that he made up and don't make it the first argument in Round 1 a forfeit and the last argument in Round 5 a forfeit. Simply have the first Round be opening arguments and the rest can be rebuttals.
>>There is no need to carry an automatic rifle in public because semi-auto's are enough.
What if they are carrying semi-automatics? Is that enough?
>>If in the wrong hands, and can cause a lot more deaths than semi-autos.
False. It depends on the magazine. A full-automatic glock is not as capable of murdering more compared to an Ar-15 because an Ar-15 has 30 more rounds and the glock has 15.
Did you just completely avoid my numbers?
1)Evidence of concealed carry stats.
2)Tell me how taking guns from people is wrong.
3)Evidence that criminals get their guns illegally.
4)Evidence of gun ban not working in England or Australia. I would rather compare these two.
5)Evidence that Hitler got into power because their were no guns for citizens.
Not really too much said about the 2nd amendment.
>>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.
Not an argument against tanks. Automatic rifles are easy to carry and are deterrent to criminals. Are you for legalising automatic rifles?
>>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.
I can't take what you said here seriously. You make so much non-sequitur arguments to the aim of this entire paragraph which was concealed carry.
1)Evidence of concealed carry stats.
2)Tell me how taking guns from people is wrong.
3)Evidence that criminals get their guns illegally.
4)Evidence of gun ban not working in England or Australia. I would rather compare these two.
5)Evidence that Hitler got into power because their were no guns for citizens.
Not really too much said about the 2nd amendment.
>>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.
Not an argument against automatic rifles you just said "I think it should stay that way".
Debate me on Vermont.
>>We have background checks.
Background checks for tanks. Still have yet to get an argument against tanks.
>>Guns are more sophisticated and more controlled. Tanks would kill innocent people.
No they are not. It depends on the user.
>>wym confused
Your question was confusing. What did you mean with that question?
>>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.
Your argument don't make sense. You can't use a tank in public because they are illegal. So you advocate for having guns in Church? Saying tanks are legal in some states is not an argument against tanks.
>>You just proved tanks are slow. They can barely go 60 in a short amount of time. 25 is their typical speed.
What do you value more? Your life or speed?
>>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.
Okay then are you for making automatic rifles legal?
>>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.
I am not talking about this. I don't think you can read data or even understand cause and effect if you think Vermont is an example of concealed carry working if you mean by less crime or gun-related violence.
>>Generally guns are more effective from deterring violent criminals than karate chops.
Yes and giving violent criminals more of an effective way of being violent.
>>This is silly. This would just be mass killing.
Mass killing can be done with a gun so not an argument against tanks.
>>How do you know which one is the criminal?
How do you know which one is the criminal with a gun?
>>How would this be effective when you are walking around public?
There are roads. You won't be using a tank on a pavement.
>>First, they are very slow. Ineffective transportation method.
"Believe it or not, tanks can actually move at about 25 miles per hour on flat terrain and up to 45 miles per hour on roads! Some tanks have even gone as fast as 60 to 70 miles per hour for short periods of time."
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-fast-can-a-tank-move
So basically you don't have an argument.
>>Plus this would imply you are only defending yourself from your car.
With a gun it would imply you are defending yourself. Still have yet to see an argument against tanks.
>>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
This is a talking point of conservatives. I don't see the point of moving away from what this is about. 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.
Can you vote on this debate?
>>OK, we won't anywhere with the guns kill people thing.
So you concede. I want you to type you concede on this point.
>>I'll stick with self-defense.
Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?
>>Tanks are justifiably illegal. You don't need a tank to defend yourself, and it would be extremely ineffective.
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.
>>Guns are effective easy to defend yourself with. In concealed or open carry u typically carry a handgun on your waistband.
Tanks are easier. Simply drive around in your tank. You don't need to put in a 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.
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.
Whose fault is that?
>>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.
So basically we shouldn't blame people having nukes but we should blame people for firing nukes. Is that your position?
>>Tanks are illegal in most cases and you typically can't carry a tank on your waistband.
Slavery wasn't illegal at one point in time. Should we go back to that?
What does carrying something around your waistband have to do with anything?
>>Guns don't kill people
False. Guns can kill people.
>>People kill people
Yes with guns.
>>Guns provide self-defense for law-abiding owners.
So how about tanks for the excuse of self defence for law-abiding owners?
>>trap
It won't be a trap if you are consistent.
>>that guns should be banned because they kill people. False point.
What do guns do then?
>>u prolly rage blocked me XD jk
I would know if I did.
>>OK. I value life over guns.
Why not have more control of something that can impact your more important value life?
Wrick-It-Ralph copied your vote is that allowed?
Hey liked this.
>>So since you just keep dodging it, I'm just going to assume that you're double talking and your standard really isn't Life over guns as you claim.
I don't see your messages for some reason even though you had me as a receiver.
>>Your question is a trap that is irrational. Yes, I value life over guns. Rebut my claims now.
Trap?
Irrational?
I want those two answered before I carry on with my hypothetical. I am not rebutting your claims because you picked both options. I said you can only pick one and since you pick to answer my hypothetical we are either going to have a conversation about that or nothing at all here. Answer the questions I gave above if you actually want to speak more.
Can't speak to you because the creator of this debate said so.
Okay.
>>1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.
Why didn't you say that instead of saying "I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.".
>>2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.
You said you are "willing to give you data a chance.". This implies that you have to actually try to make an effort to even consider data as a way of finding out if a point is right or wrong.
>>3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.
The problem here is that even the distinction that you made that random news articles is too general. There are papers from professional's in their specific field like political commentators, economists etc. To say an opinion of an economist is not greater than the opinion which I am assuming is a non economist implied by this "If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent." is bad. A doctor gives his professional opinion on how to best treat you. A random person on the street is trying to sell you snake oil. You have implied that there opinions are the same even though one is more credible than the other. If this is not the case you clearly have shown the lapse of judgement to opinion pieces which are written by professionals in the specific field they are talking about.
I will repeat what I said again in hopes you will actually answer the question not talk about something based on an assumption okay?
Shouldn't have said harm but your assumption wasn't because of that problem so I will ask the question again.
Do you value life over guns?
If you don't want to answer this question then I will argue about what you assumed what I said.
So basically answer the question or ask me to rebut your claims that you made. Please don't pick both.
>>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.
It doesn't matter what both sides think if they don't follow the same standards in order to see how is right. When both have the same standards then both cannot be right if they are on opposing sides. For this reason it is not based on personal opinion instead who is right or wrong based on standards.
>>Christianity can be proven, but not in the typical ways you would think of.
The typical way is the right and the other way I think you mean personal experience is pseudo-intellectual. To have personal experience above facts is not rational.
>>People have personal experiences with religion. Religion is not an emotion to an extent, with personal experiences you find out it is a fact.
Anecdotes are anecdotal evidence. They show X person had X experience. This does not prove anything apart from X person had X experience. If you make the claim that he saw God or had an encounter with something out of this world the burden is on you to prove it but you can't like what many other Religious people who are unable to have a scientific basis for any of these claims. Whether they are too afraid of peer review or don't even think the best way to measure observable evidence which is science is not necessary.
>>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.\
Do you concede this is the begging the question fallacy?
>>Hmm. I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.
Wait what?
You accuse me of not effectively getting my point across but you tend not to even accept data.
>>I do accept hard data. So I'm willing to give you data a chance.
What? So basically it takes you time to even consider data to be a substantial way to make a point?
Do you do this with science when they provide evidence of the existence of the black hole? You would have to second-guess yourself and get out of your comfort zone.
If you can if you were being consistent what is the difference between data and sources?
You were asking for evidence before making those claims but now you are pretty much saying you tend to dismiss sources. Why even ask for data when you tend to dismiss it anyway?
>>I have type 1 diabetes. Don't make fun of it.
I am not making fun of type 1 diabetes. I am making fun of Type1 comparing him to type 1 diabetes.
>>It is not even a mental thing so what you said is irrelevant.
So if it was a mental thing I can make a joke about it?
Do you deny the existence of mental illnesses?
>>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.
Yes but if we were being honest both sides of the opposite side can't be right. One side must be correct.
>>Conservatives use logic too.
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.
>>I agree with the second amendment and not banning guns and allowing concealed-carry to be legal. Dismantle it.
I need more than that so I ask more questions.
Do you value harm over being able to carry guns?
Guess RM is right that you are Type1 diabetes.
Yeah I called Type1 that once. If you are him hope you remember it.
Why do you have to let me down?
>>What you fail to realize is that I think your positions are wrong as well.
The problem here is that I used logic to get my conclusion not emotion. Give me something you agree with as a conservative and I will logically dismantle it.
>>Both parties think the other one is wrong. It is all political opinions
It is more than that when public healthcare can save lives, war profiteers are committing genocide in Yemen for money and immigration because Trump said so without evidence.
>>and both sides can make good arguments.
If we were really specific then yes but in most cases progressives are correct for improving situations not regressing.
>>Both sides have their opinions and their evidence, and getting triggered that they don't change their mind is foolish.
I hope the person I am debating follows logic as well. If they do and we are on opposing sides without agreeing on who won then one of us much have been illogical. We can't still be both right when we are taking opposing sides to an issue.
>>That's not how politics works.
I do know politics if filled with a bunch of liars doing anything to be president or make money.
>>and it is your opinion that it would help countless lives, but would it be effective?
Yes.
>>Would it drive down doctors?
Where would they go?
>>Would it be too expensive?
No. Taxes can cover it if the US increases taxes on European goods like what Yang says. I think I am correct on this.
>>You have to look at all the possibilities and notice their are differing opinions and facts.
Yes there are different opinions but if we agree on what we values most then one side would have the facts and the other would not or not enough to have a more substantial point. Lets say if we both value human life then the option is easy public healthcare. This will make sure everyone will be treated and it will be funded through taxes instead of being forced to pay with insurances or on the point of being treated.
>>First comment. Because that's literally what I said.
No I asked how am I a conservative?
>>The problem is that you're attributing something to somebody that wasn't based on individual merit. the moment that happens. You're committing bigotry.
I don't understand this.
>>I simply called the stance conservative,
How?
>>You have a profile for "conservative" in your head and when someone fits the profile, you add all of the stereotypes to them.
You don't do the same when you know what kind of person you are talking to is?
>>Now if you want to live your life that way, then cool. But just know that you're participating in bigotry if you do.
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?
>>And insulting them is somehow more effective? Because people totally admit they're wrong when you insult them right?
They didn't before I insulted them and when they can't even make a sound argument against me. They frustrate me.
>>Back to the reason for the skirmish. If you say that you hear them out first, then we do you need to profile them in the first place?
"Profile them in the first place?" What do you mean?
>>If you're going to suspend your prejudice just long enough to know them, then you don't practically need the prejudice.
Yes when having a conversation where both parties are not lying to one another about both of them making reasonable arguments. Turns out feelings over facts thinks his arguments are sound but they are not.
>>So not only do you fail on moral grounds. You fall on tactical and semantic grounds as well.
Why can't I do something for the fun of it or make my stance clear that I don't like what you are doing therefore don't expect me to entertain your not well thought through ideas?
Are you really Type1? (joke)
Saw you got offended over it in some forum post.
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?
>>meh
What? I want to see what people can come up with. I have failed to be entertained and it is getting boring doing whatever it is I am doing.
>>Who is doing this? It sounds like a liberal silencing college speakers.
Is the college a publicly owned or privately?
If publicly why isn't the community around the college not allowed to have a say who they have on? Are you against students having a say in who is allowed to have a platform?
>>Pretty hypocritical of you, considering you believe in physically assaulting people in public with whom your political beliefs don't align with.
Justify. Why can't you take my actual position? If someone threatened your livelihood or income is that person justified to do what is necessary to make sure they can survive?
>>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.
You said I would assault people who I disagree with so why would I assault people who are on the same side?
Using their right to protest is not a productive. Why is that the case?
>>Surely you're not a slave to your emotions such that you have to stoop to someone else's level correct?
No but it is fun seeing what people will come up with as insults. Just want to see if any of them can create their own material. I found one saying I was still in grade school as an insult.
They are not but since they resort to insults so will I. Not the best idea.
I listen to what they say. I tell them to explain it but they can't then I resort to insults like with feelings over facts,
How is being a bigot a bad thing to bad faith actors and people who don't actually think for themselves by parroting their idols?
Are you tolerant of people with awful viewpoints?
If they sound just like their idols I can treat them as the con they are.
>>You're creating a stereotype of what a conservative is. It's like stereotyping atheism.
I am creating it from the majority where it is led by bad faith actors like Steven Crowder, PragerU, Ben Shapiro and Turning Point USA or at the very least idiots.
>>Conservative just means you want to change things as little as possible.
Which means if they were able to they would go back to slavery or a time when blacks were unfairly represented like there are now in criminal cases.
>>This leads to certain majority views, but being a conservative by no means forces anyone to act the way you're describing
Yes based on the majority view. I don't make claims about a groups based on a minority or someone who isn't follow what the movement represents.
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.
Conservatives would say they don't want it but then do it behind your back.
I am saying what I want to happen.
I can't condone this.
I would urge the moderators to send you to the hypothetical gulag.
You can improve with time.
The only really thing you need to understand is how to formulate an argument.
Simple have a claim supported by evidence with an explanation.
Example:
IsaiahDUde543 is losing. The evidence is here https://www.debateart.com/debates/804. Looking at the votes Ramshutu has 20 and IsaiahDude543 has 12.
Make sure the evidence you use is proper. With mine I am able to link it to this debate but with others there is many opinion pieces that don't really present facts in their article. My advice is avoid opinion pieces as evidence and use sites like Quartz, PewResearch and most .org sites. They are either credible sources or actually provide links to their claims.
You got this. I don't see how he could win.
He can't take criticism nor someone who actually calls him out for his bad faith acting.
Okay. Have a topic at mind. Make sure I agree with it then create the debate.
Lol. Athias blocked me. I'll block you as well. Just so show the same treatment back to you. All I have to do now is also become a bad faith actor. The thing is I have standards and I won't stoop that low to give you what you deserve. A taste of your own medicine. Hopefully someone else shames you for the fraud you are.
I rather debate him on a topic that he thinks he can beat me then I will beat him.