From the source:"when a white truck barreled through a pedestrian-filled closed street. In the end, 86 were dead, including 10 children, and 304 spectators were left injured."
>>You just happen to value murdering someone from range
How is this a counter to what I said?
A gun is more effective at longer ranges, is quieter with the right attachments, easier to attain and cheaper.
So if this is about values why are you arguing against my values with yours? We value different things. That is the extent of your thought.
>>I'm not sure how to simplify this. Are you really unable to understand that you think a bullet suits your subjective values/tastes in murdering people better than an automobile? That is personal preference
Tell me how I am wrong about a gun being able to k*ll a person at longer ranges?
It is not subjective since it can be measured. A car requires a collision whereas a gun requires a collision with the bullet which is fired using a gun from a range that suits the person.
>>Okay, say someone dies from a driving incident. What are you actually saying is effected more greatly than that?
I was giving a clear examples in ways a gun is more effective than a car. It is more effective with range, being quiet, take a shorter amount of time to get a handgun and is cheaper.
>>And I effectively explained how my religious position on gay marriage has nothing to do with my political belief.
Yes it does. If you weren't Religious you would be okay with legalising gay marriage instead of creating cop out like the government shouldn't be in the business of it. Did you also steal that from the conservatives? Are you opposed to the law that made gay marriage legal?
>>and I even have my stance on gay marriage on my profile-
Do you dislike gay people?
>>https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
Shame about that win ratio. Really goes to show how bad you actually you are when this site is actually moderated and people vote fairly.
>>I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is.
I never said that. What are you quoting?
Guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
You made the claim which started this with this comment "Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
>>"I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Who said I was?
My claim has been guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
>>If I argue feelings then you will have an easy win. I will argue only facts, sound like a deal?
So your argument is that I should waste my time with someone who values feelings over facts?
>>All you have to do is name one political belief I have based on religion
Alec already did. Shame you can't admit to it. It would be me stating your positions and showing you how this is Religiously motivated but then your argument will amount that no.
None of them had proper citations. Wonders how you even know what evidence is.
>>You obviously are overly obsessed with this site. That is why you have no life.
How many definitions you have for "no life"? I know you can't defend your position but stop trying to confuse me with your definitions of "no life".
>>I did say that you supported mass migration, which you defended
Evidence? Did I even mention the word mass or are you deluded? Please do find where I said it and since I have already checked I didn't even mention your straw-man of mass migration since you assumed my position without even telling you.
>>You then strawmanned me by saying I support no immigration.
You implied that you want protectionism. What better way to do that with stopping immigration?
>>You implicitly admitted you believe in promoting mass migration.
>>In the context of homicide, there is a maximal effectiveness to my way of thinking, known as dead. I figured more effective murder would mean something like being more dead.
I made the case guns are more effective at murder. Murder as in killing someone alive not already dead. This has got to be arguing in bad faith. You clearly understand no-one in their right mind talks about how to kill dead people because they are already dead but for you to say that gives me the impression you are arguing in bad faith.
>>You said this, without giving a direct answer to someone else and I was curious about why cars aren't to be treated as such in your view, being notably "effective at bringing human harm"
Guns are more effective. Tackling a bigger problem is more important than tackling a smaller one first.
>>I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though
Did I say I "think of some murder victims being more dead than others."? This has got to be a straw-man. Why not ask for my position instead of lying about it?
>>I am here every once in a while in my free time.
You would waste your time on something that you implied if someone uses it has no "life"?
>>Your uninformed responses lead me to believe you are likely a bot.
Says the person who can't provide evidence to support their point.
>>487 comments= proving my point that you have no life.
Really why did you spend so many characters on a site where you consider it to be non-life?
>>Definition of life: having something to live for. Debateart.com is not something worth living for.
Why are you here then? Are you for non-life? This definition is awful just like your positions.
>>If you want to further this discussion, you will have to debate me. Since you seem so adamant about this immigration business, I will start compiling information for a future debate if you want.
If someone else does not take the debate then in the last hours of the accepting a challenge phase I will accept. Don't know how you are going to defend being against immigration but if you are going to make a straw-man of me saying I am for "mass immigration" without me actually saying it then I think twice for even accepting the debate in the first place if you can't show me the courtesy of not lying about my position.
Yes Dead is dead what is your point?
If this is about what you started then it is another non-sequitur. You are the one who brought up the effective argument so don't blame me when I told you how wrong you are.
>>I'm not gonna talk about personal preferences for premeditated murder.
If this was supposed to rebut what I said earlier. It is a non-sequitur. Next time do tell me how I am wrong about guns being more effective than cars when in respect to murder.
If you are implying me being here is not a "life" then why are you here?
Another problem with your statement is that I am alive. If I wasn't I wouldn't be able to type this right now would I?
You don't know what you are talking about dude.
>>You have been doing this non stop for like three hours.
Really? I think the longest discussion I had with someone was about 487 comments. Don't know the time frame but 487 is a lot. Note this is was not all by me and the person I was talking to but I think about 20 of it was about something else.
>>Nope. Because it's not necessary for me to have a tank, rocket launcher and mortars in order for me to defend myself.
If no-one had guns would you need a gun to protect yourself?
>>I don't view it as a burden. I view it as a freedom. Guns are not a burden. However, lack of education and and lack of morals are.
So are you for not making anything illegal? You said you are for freedom.
>>I am FOR the right to bear arms.
Don't see why you still allow the past to burden you in the present.
>>ABSOLUTELY. A resounding "YES". Why not?
How about Tanks, Rocket Launchers and mortars?
You have already state you are for freedom but that contradicts the very thing I quote from you at the start of this.
What are you for necessary restrictions or freedom?
>>Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm.
Yes depends on the standard but to everything that matters whether it be to be the best at murdering people guns win in almost every single category. You would have to stretch to find a car beating a gun by any measurement and even in that case there are better measurements in knowing which one is a better k*ller.
>>sorry but i didn't link you to my previous comment so ill say it for the second time here if you didnt see it
Sorry for not seeing it.
>>not really because one of the largest things of fascism is nationalism
Yeah your right. I had 4 lines written but then realised I would have to like my country in order to like a dictatorship as well.
>>probably, and it doesn't help that steven crowder calls people to the left fascist as well. probably where he got the idea
I do agree with you that Our_Boat_Is_Right is creatively lazy that he resorts to copying me while also on top of copying Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. It is a shame how much he values idols over what his own opinion is. Yeah I think he was talking about me being an authoritarian but since he hasn't really thought about right-wing ideas instead of digesting them understand what he is eating he doesn't realise more specifically he would class me as an authoritarian.
>>Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm.
False. A gun can be used from a safer distance. A car requires a collision which can damage and in some cases not make it capable of another collision. A gun can be fired one after the other at optimal performance. A gun is much better weapon and murdering people than cars and if the sound is an issue with a gun. Simply attach a suppressor or if the range is not good enough with a handgun use an AR-15 with a scope for longer distances while also understand bullet drop-off. A car also cost more than a handgun. A handgun requires a background check whereas a car requires a driver licence which requires the person to pass a driving test.
>>Do you happen to have any other approaches to this?
This approach works fine when you gave provided a false statement arguing against mine.
>>And what I'm saying is that you say that towards conservatives, I simply just replaced it with liberals. You admitting that was a bad debationg tactic is u admitting your bad at debating.
I don't really view a conservative opinion highly. I didn't admit I was bad at debating you did and there is evidence of it to be the case.
>>Will you accept my debate I challenged you too,
I am afraid that you are going to respond with feelings to my facts.
>>Yea, and without cars, drunk driving accidents wouldn't occur either.
Without alcohol he wouldn't be able to drink drive. Should have provided a better example.
>>Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm. If you take the position not blaming the tool. Are you for legalising tanks, rocket launchers and mortars and going with doing something about mental illness since you are not for banning guns?
>>Nope, that is not what I meant. I mean you can't blame the instrument/tool for the result (unless it was defective).
Why not? Without the gun mass shootings won't take place.
>>Regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, it's still the person,
It does matter. If he is drunk he is unaware what he is doing. This distinction makes your comparison between drunk driving and gun violence bad. One is aware of what he/she is doing and the other isn't.
>>this sort of helped but it also confirmed another thing i didn't like about you in that you believe that some of your opinions are 100% fact
No I don't and it does depend on the system I use to get to that. I take the position we can't truly know anything objective since we are using our brains which is subjective. Since that thinking leads to absurdity I don't use that in debates or in comments but I still think about it.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
more specifically the insults people
My trash debater comment I made to him I think that is what you are asking about. Yes it was caused by this because he did lie about my position so I insulted him.
>>anti-nationalist was a bad sort of words but you are not for nationalism example here
Yes I am against nationalism but didn't specifically say it in that comment. Is that what you wanted to know?
>>If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving
Depends on the context. Do you mean both are aware of what they are doing? If so then no because the person who is driving is drunk and the person killing people isn't drunk because you would have made that apparent if it was the case.
>>If doctors know best, why do they disagree with each other?
Where are you getting this from? I think an abortion has to be cleared by two doctors so in order for it to take place it would require both of their approval. If what you say was true why are there so many abortions taking place if doctors don't agree with one another?
>>Rape isn't sex.
Am I talking to a buffoon?
sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
No where does it state it has to be consensual. Rape can be sex since sex does not have to be legal to be sex.
>>All abortions aren't justified by marginal cases.
Like you said. Mother do it based on convenience. How is that not a justification?
>>Or, do you think killing babies at will is something we should keep? If you were aborted, you couldn't make this argument right now.
Appealing to emotion is not a good argument. I wasn't aborted and I thank my mother for that. The problem is it is still mother's choice whether or not she wants to carry something for 6 months and then for 18 years raise it. This choice if not given will mean they are force to carry a baby they do not want which will carry on their frustration to the child. Only making their lives miserable.
When I don't have evidence about Venezuela. I am going to talk about the Soviet Union is what you are doing.
>>BTW we still have thousands of tariffs like the sugar tariff and are still the largest economy in the world
Any evidence this helps the US economy?
>>If a country puts a tariff on our cars, we should put tariffs of equal value of theirs. Don't let them take advantage of us.
You do realise if both parties don't back down there will be a loss for both countries? You are basically hoping for other countries to step down. The problem is they won't.
>>Research the VA.....https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/16/477814218/attempted-fix-for-va-health-delays-creates-new-bureaucracy
https://www.military.com/militaryadvantage/2017/12/03/va-health-leaders-failed-protect-patients-inept-doctors.html
Are you giving a point to my side? The free market is not helping veterans and the measly 10 billion doesn't help them either. Your point if public healthcare is bad because Veterans are still not being treat is laughable. It is fault of the government in charge this is the case not public healthcare like you can call it that. Public healthcare would mean these veterans would be going into medical centres and getting treated not waiting to be called in to be treated. Did you not read this: "Although the idea sounds simple enough, the fix hasn't worked out as planned. Wait times have gotten worse — not better. Compared with this time last year, there are 70,000 more appointments that took vets at least a month to be seen." Which means private companies are screwing over VA's not the government as of right now.
>>I think it should be merit based. Only allow skilled laborers. My family immigrated at one point, and they helped build this country. Don't let people in who will go on welfare and won't contribute.
Do tell me about theses immigrants that don't contribute.
>>Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.
In what way and what sources I are you basing your position about me on. I would like to know what other people think of me. Certainly from people who I hardly talk to so I understand how other people perceive me without directly speaking to me.
>>i do wonder if the first sentence was intentionally a detect insult.
It is based on seeing his debate about Fake News. Do see my vote in order to understand why I said that or read the debate and see for yourself.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/638
>>i do disagree with the fascist part because he is anti-nationalist. don't know if you - it or you keep it 2 words or what
I don't know what you mean here. Who is an anti-nationalist?
>>You liberals are perpetual children that want the government to coddle you and tell you how to live your life while not wanting to take responsibility for your actions.
More insults. Really shows to show who the intolerable one is and can't defend his point.
>>If government healthcare is so good, how come the US is responsible for most new medical developments that these other countries all benefit from.
Shouldn't the priority of the United States be to helping its citizens before making new medical developments?
>>We don't fix our prices like those countries do, so people are given the incentive to innovate to make more money.
While also making sure the poor do not get the treatment they want.
>>They think that gender isn't biologically based**
>>It only began using free trade after WWII to economically boost pro-capitalist countries in the Cold War.
Yes capitalism made them economically the best not protectionism.
>>My views are not inconsistent because tariff revenue will allow us to lower income taxes, which gives people more freedom. Just a tradeoff.
Doesn't mean it will happen. Trump I am sure had a tax plan which most cut taxes for the higher-earners.
>>My empirical evidence that socialism sucks is that every country that has truly tried it has led to economic collapse. If you want to see government-run healthcare in America, check out the VA. Wait times are horrendous in Canada/UK.
Don't have say that I do without showing evidence. Really is a weird way you give an argument. When you realise your source is not properly sourced then you don't decide to correct it okay.
>>"Everyone is immigrants". I think you need to check out the definition of immigrant. I was born here with two American citizen parents.
At some point your ancestry can be traced backed to immigrants. Why are you not for immigration when you wouldn't be here if it was the case?
>>Immigrants should have to pay taxes for 5-10 years if they want something. We shouldn't allow people to come into our country as a public charge.
I am sure for an immigration to be a US citizen it would have to be hear for 4 year so why do you have a number to 5-10?
>>Yes, the abortion law would allow it for nearly every situation if you just go to the right doctor.
Why shouldn't it? The doctors knows best.
>>Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. If you happen to, deal with the consequences of your actions.
What if the woman was drug, rapped or not aware of what was taking place? Should the woman be allowed to abort?
>>Who is the anti-intellectual now? You can't name ONE belief? You are saying this because this is based no where in reality. You can't even prove your position.
God is the basis of your beliefs. To say otherwise is to deny your belief in God. Since your political beliefs has to start from somewhere. I am saying your political positions are based on your belief in God. It is not anti-intellectual because you are Religious and that does dictate every aspect of your life even politics.
>>Conservatives can have an honest debate with some people on the other side who actually can do it intellectually as well. All this is is confirmation bias.
Conservatives are incapable of being intellectual so for you to say that is a lie. Clear example is that CNN is Fake News debate. Confirmation bias? Ironic coming from a conservative.
>>I want to do it on gun control, because I would like to shred you. If not, that's ok, I understand you just insult instead of using facts.
I think it would be a waste of my time. Are you afraid you can't win the immigration debate? You don't need to tell me I already know.
>>There are crazy people that believe in gender doesn't exist. You believe it does, I'm guessing?
Yes gender does exist and even the "crazy" people also believe that.
>>Religion isn't really provable or disprovable
When you define God it is open to criticism. If you say God is something or did something and you do not have to proof to prove it then God doesn't exist. The rational position is to disbelieve something in order for biases not impact the decision. Difficult for Religion for how much a part it can play.
>>Climate change is real. Everyone believes in climate change. You Lefties think it is caused almost entirely by humans. We believe that it is occurring, but we don't think humans are the main cause if we are a cause at all. It varies. I think we are playing a tiny part and it isn't an issue.
Guess I can add that you are anti-science to the list.
>>Free Trade: China is very protectionist and their GDP is growing rapidly. One-way free trade helps the protectionist country at the expense of the free trade country.
My argument was about the United States not China. So do tell me how the United States can do what China does. Aren't you against big government or are you inconsistent with your views?
>>Socialism failed(because central planning is always inefficient)
You are making the claim that is not supported by your link. It states dismantlement not because of socialism. Your link also has no evidence to support their side. Want to try again?
>>Not really an anarchist. Just think we should shift spending to more important things, spend less money, and we should reform and severely limit welfare. No welfare should be available for immigrants.
So a conservative. Problem here is that immigrants would be every single person in the United States. What if the immigrant is a legal citizen?
>>That is so general. Protect health? Protect her from the anxiety resulting in raising a child? Stress if bad for your health, so it is essentially allowing anything depending on the doctor.
Guess I can add conservatives don't like nuance or complicated situations. Yes doctors make the final call because they are knowledgeable on the field.
>>We'd have to have a full debate on immigration sometime to get anywhere with that. There are a few benefits, but they are outweighed by the negatives in my opinion.
Okay. Do tell me when you want to have it.
>>Small government is kind of subjective term. It is based off of the level of control government has over our lives: Do they allow us to choose our insurance provider? Can we choose what we do with our income, or do they tax some of it? That kind of thing
Okay. I much rather the government be in control of healthcare since it works in other developed countries.
Ironic when a conservative is losing a debate because the facts prove otherwise. Do look at your CNN is Fake News debate if you want a reminder.
>>Cenk Uger a SJW socialist
You are an SJW for advocating for conservatism. Do tell me how I am wrong. Socialist is not an insult either so do try again.
>>made up the saying "google it" and uses that as his source for everything.
Yes I did see that. A blunder on his part but the facts don't lie. Cenk is right Ben is wrong but I do concede Ben from what I remember in that Politicon debate did a better job defending his side.
>>It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes.
It is conservatwats not liberals. Remember conservatives are anti-intellectual.
>>That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things.
Wow. Totally agree that conservatives don't agree when they are wrong.
>>It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
You are copying me. Wow. You really are un-original. Your profile is copied from someone else. You words are copied from me and your Religion is from your parents. Do you have a hint of originality or am I expecting too much from a conservative? Oh wait I already know the answer. Yes I am.
If it isn't a trash debater.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
It is not me who went past talking intellectually. It is the conservatives that started that.
>>Omar, I don't know one conservative who argues on the basis of religion, so stop bringing religion up. If they do
Christianity tells you how to live your life. If you don't understand that guess you are d*mber than I thought.
>>politics shouldn't be argued from a political standpoint
Religion is used as a basis for their political beliefs.
>>The only one being irrational is the one who can't have an honest discussion with the other side.
The other side are anti-intellectual for believing in God and denying climate change.
>>Conservatives aren't the ones shouting down free speech and using violence against the other side.
No but they are the one lying about the facts. I rather have the facts than everyone have a platform for lies.
>>Conservatives advocate for intellectual discussion but prove the "tolerant left" isn't so tolerant.
Conservatives are anti-intellectual so it is ironic like your profile picture. Conservatives value feelings over facts which is why they believe in God.
>>Free trade hurts developed nations and helps developing nations due to the small labor costs.
The reason why the US is so big is because of free trade. They can exploit bad practices of developing countries like what Nike does with sweatshop workers and profit from that.
>>Don't even mention the mass starvation that results in socialist nations:Venezuela
Evidence and I would like it for Venezuela and do also find something that say because of socialism they are failing.
>>I am against taxes
An anarchist. Sheesh. Last one I spoke to was a complete annoyance. Hope you are not. So do you agree that taxation is a form of socialism?
>>NY's new abortion law
I urge you to read this: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
>>Abortion is the murder of a baby for the convenience of the mother.
Okay? So why shouldn't we allow the mother to do what is convenient with her life?
>>as you guys proclaim it is.
When did I "proclaim" this? Stop with the strawman.
>>Mass Immigration is good? You didn't provide evidence.
I think I would be wasting my time when you haven't even looked at seriously into the topic. You gave me source about welfare but didn't even more a source of immigration's impact on the economy and on jobs.
>>I'm sure you like it because the immigrants we are getting are overwhelmingly pro big government, anti-gun, etc.
Don't even know what small government is so I don't know what you are talking about to know where I stand.
>>Infinite genders
Who says this? I don't since you can't prove this to be the case.
>>You people have the audacity to call us anti-science.
>>https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nyc-terrorist-attack/least-one-person-dead-incident-lower-manhattan-n816166
8 are dead because of 1 person. What is your claim here?
>>https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/2016-nice-terrorist-attacks
From the source:"when a white truck barreled through a pedestrian-filled closed street. In the end, 86 were dead, including 10 children, and 304 spectators were left injured."
What is your claim?
>>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/europe/barcelona-catalunya-van.html
From the source:"killing at least 13 people and leaving 80 bloodied on the pavement."
What is your claim?
I don't know what you are trying to say with data if I don't know what you claiming with it.
>>You just happen to value murdering someone from range
How is this a counter to what I said?
A gun is more effective at longer ranges, is quieter with the right attachments, easier to attain and cheaper.
So if this is about values why are you arguing against my values with yours? We value different things. That is the extent of your thought.
>>I'm not sure how to simplify this. Are you really unable to understand that you think a bullet suits your subjective values/tastes in murdering people better than an automobile? That is personal preference
Tell me how I am wrong about a gun being able to k*ll a person at longer ranges?
It is not subjective since it can be measured. A car requires a collision whereas a gun requires a collision with the bullet which is fired using a gun from a range that suits the person.
>>I'm not asking about your personal convenience
Tell me how that is personal convenience.
A car can never run you over without a collision. A handgun shoots a bullet to cover the distance. This is not my opinion.
>>I'm asking why
Guns are more effective than cars k*lling people because of range, a suppressor, takes a shorter amount of time to get a handgun and is cheaper.
>>Okay, say someone dies from a driving incident. What are you actually saying is effected more greatly than that?
I was giving a clear examples in ways a gun is more effective than a car. It is more effective with range, being quiet, take a shorter amount of time to get a handgun and is cheaper.
There is 30k characters and you have 3 days. Don't lie to me about not being able to type out your political beliefs.
Post your argument.
I would like you to list out your positions.
If you don't want to simply copy your DDO profile as Round 1.
I'll save my comments for the debate.
>>And I effectively explained how my religious position on gay marriage has nothing to do with my political belief.
Yes it does. If you weren't Religious you would be okay with legalising gay marriage instead of creating cop out like the government shouldn't be in the business of it. Did you also steal that from the conservatives? Are you opposed to the law that made gay marriage legal?
>>and I even have my stance on gay marriage on my profile-
Do you dislike gay people?
>>https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
Shame about that win ratio. Really goes to show how bad you actually you are when this site is actually moderated and people vote fairly.
>>I am arguing this and proving it with facts
What fact?
Do you think I can improve my opening argument?
>>I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is.
I never said that. What are you quoting?
Guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
You made the claim which started this with this comment "Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
>>"I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Who said I was?
My claim has been guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
>>If I argue feelings then you will have an easy win. I will argue only facts, sound like a deal?
So your argument is that I should waste my time with someone who values feelings over facts?
>>All you have to do is name one political belief I have based on religion
Alec already did. Shame you can't admit to it. It would be me stating your positions and showing you how this is Religiously motivated but then your argument will amount that no.
>> I have provided multiple sources
None of them had proper citations. Wonders how you even know what evidence is.
>>You obviously are overly obsessed with this site. That is why you have no life.
How many definitions you have for "no life"? I know you can't defend your position but stop trying to confuse me with your definitions of "no life".
>>I did say that you supported mass migration, which you defended
Evidence? Did I even mention the word mass or are you deluded? Please do find where I said it and since I have already checked I didn't even mention your straw-man of mass migration since you assumed my position without even telling you.
>>You then strawmanned me by saying I support no immigration.
You implied that you want protectionism. What better way to do that with stopping immigration?
>>You implicitly admitted you believe in promoting mass migration.
Where?
>>In the context of homicide, there is a maximal effectiveness to my way of thinking, known as dead. I figured more effective murder would mean something like being more dead.
I made the case guns are more effective at murder. Murder as in killing someone alive not already dead. This has got to be arguing in bad faith. You clearly understand no-one in their right mind talks about how to kill dead people because they are already dead but for you to say that gives me the impression you are arguing in bad faith.
>>You said this, without giving a direct answer to someone else and I was curious about why cars aren't to be treated as such in your view, being notably "effective at bringing human harm"
Guns are more effective. Tackling a bigger problem is more important than tackling a smaller one first.
>>I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though
Did I say I "think of some murder victims being more dead than others."? This has got to be a straw-man. Why not ask for my position instead of lying about it?
>>I am here every once in a while in my free time.
You would waste your time on something that you implied if someone uses it has no "life"?
>>Your uninformed responses lead me to believe you are likely a bot.
Says the person who can't provide evidence to support their point.
>>487 comments= proving my point that you have no life.
Really why did you spend so many characters on a site where you consider it to be non-life?
>>Definition of life: having something to live for. Debateart.com is not something worth living for.
Why are you here then? Are you for non-life? This definition is awful just like your positions.
>>If you want to further this discussion, you will have to debate me. Since you seem so adamant about this immigration business, I will start compiling information for a future debate if you want.
If someone else does not take the debate then in the last hours of the accepting a challenge phase I will accept. Don't know how you are going to defend being against immigration but if you are going to make a straw-man of me saying I am for "mass immigration" without me actually saying it then I think twice for even accepting the debate in the first place if you can't show me the courtesy of not lying about my position.
>>Dead is Dead
Yes Dead is dead what is your point?
If this is about what you started then it is another non-sequitur. You are the one who brought up the effective argument so don't blame me when I told you how wrong you are.
>>I'm not gonna talk about personal preferences for premeditated murder.
If this was supposed to rebut what I said earlier. It is a non-sequitur. Next time do tell me how I am wrong about guns being more effective than cars when in respect to murder.
>>Dude. Get a life.
If you are implying me being here is not a "life" then why are you here?
Another problem with your statement is that I am alive. If I wasn't I wouldn't be able to type this right now would I?
You don't know what you are talking about dude.
>>You have been doing this non stop for like three hours.
Really? I think the longest discussion I had with someone was about 487 comments. Don't know the time frame but 487 is a lot. Note this is was not all by me and the person I was talking to but I think about 20 of it was about something else.
>>Nope. Because it's not necessary for me to have a tank, rocket launcher and mortars in order for me to defend myself.
If no-one had guns would you need a gun to protect yourself?
>>I don't view it as a burden. I view it as a freedom. Guns are not a burden. However, lack of education and and lack of morals are.
So are you for not making anything illegal? You said you are for freedom.
>>I am FOR the right to bear arms.
Don't see why you still allow the past to burden you in the present.
>>ABSOLUTELY. A resounding "YES". Why not?
How about Tanks, Rocket Launchers and mortars?
You have already state you are for freedom but that contradicts the very thing I quote from you at the start of this.
What are you for necessary restrictions or freedom?
dave2242 is correct
It was the first thing I quoted from you.
>>Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm.
Yes depends on the standard but to everything that matters whether it be to be the best at murdering people guns win in almost every single category. You would have to stretch to find a car beating a gun by any measurement and even in that case there are better measurements in knowing which one is a better k*ller.
>>sorry but i didn't link you to my previous comment so ill say it for the second time here if you didnt see it
Sorry for not seeing it.
>>not really because one of the largest things of fascism is nationalism
Yeah your right. I had 4 lines written but then realised I would have to like my country in order to like a dictatorship as well.
>>probably, and it doesn't help that steven crowder calls people to the left fascist as well. probably where he got the idea
I do agree with you that Our_Boat_Is_Right is creatively lazy that he resorts to copying me while also on top of copying Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. It is a shame how much he values idols over what his own opinion is. Yeah I think he was talking about me being an authoritarian but since he hasn't really thought about right-wing ideas instead of digesting them understand what he is eating he doesn't realise more specifically he would class me as an authoritarian.
>>How about you 2 have a debate on which party is better, democrats or republicans?
I can't stand him in the comment section. I couldn't stand him when I voted on his debate. I can't imagine debating a topic with him.
>>Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm.
False. A gun can be used from a safer distance. A car requires a collision which can damage and in some cases not make it capable of another collision. A gun can be fired one after the other at optimal performance. A gun is much better weapon and murdering people than cars and if the sound is an issue with a gun. Simply attach a suppressor or if the range is not good enough with a handgun use an AR-15 with a scope for longer distances while also understand bullet drop-off. A car also cost more than a handgun. A handgun requires a background check whereas a car requires a driver licence which requires the person to pass a driving test.
>>Do you happen to have any other approaches to this?
This approach works fine when you gave provided a false statement arguing against mine.
>>It pays to be prudent AND have good judgement.
So you are for tanks, rocket launchers and mortars?
>> I seriously doubt tanks, rocket launchers and mortars are what our forefathers hand in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Why do you care so much about the past when that is burdening the progression United States as a society can have?
>>Of course, one could argue "the right to bear arms" should include tanks and the like (not me), but again Good judgement is in order.
Good judgement? So basically are you for or against the right to bear arms?
>>The vast majority of guns and gun owners do not inflict human harm.
The vast majority of automatic rifles and automatic rifle owners do not inflict human harm. Do you want to bring that back?
>>And what I'm saying is that you say that towards conservatives, I simply just replaced it with liberals. You admitting that was a bad debationg tactic is u admitting your bad at debating.
I don't really view a conservative opinion highly. I didn't admit I was bad at debating you did and there is evidence of it to be the case.
>>Will you accept my debate I challenged you too,
I am afraid that you are going to respond with feelings to my facts.
>>Yea, and without cars, drunk driving accidents wouldn't occur either.
Without alcohol he wouldn't be able to drink drive. Should have provided a better example.
>>Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm. If you take the position not blaming the tool. Are you for legalising tanks, rocket launchers and mortars and going with doing something about mental illness since you are not for banning guns?
>>well excuse me then. it just appears that way because of the way you write
I asked questions from the post you said I was an anti-nationalist.
>>my first comment was towards out_boat_is_right because he called you fascist and i was stating that you are not because you are against nationalism
Oh okay. Now I understand. I can still be a fascist but be opposed to nationalism. I can be an authoritarian which I think what he was going at.
Guess allowing their voices to be heard on campus.
>>Nope, that is not what I meant. I mean you can't blame the instrument/tool for the result (unless it was defective).
Why not? Without the gun mass shootings won't take place.
>>Regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, it's still the person,
It does matter. If he is drunk he is unaware what he is doing. This distinction makes your comparison between drunk driving and gun violence bad. One is aware of what he/she is doing and the other isn't.
>>this sort of helped but it also confirmed another thing i didn't like about you in that you believe that some of your opinions are 100% fact
No I don't and it does depend on the system I use to get to that. I take the position we can't truly know anything objective since we are using our brains which is subjective. Since that thinking leads to absurdity I don't use that in debates or in comments but I still think about it.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
more specifically the insults people
My trash debater comment I made to him I think that is what you are asking about. Yes it was caused by this because he did lie about my position so I insulted him.
>>anti-nationalist was a bad sort of words but you are not for nationalism example here
Yes I am against nationalism but didn't specifically say it in that comment. Is that what you wanted to know?
>>maybe this is why u r bad at debating
That is not what I said.
>>THx for admitting ur bad at debating.
I never did such a thing but you did.
>>If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving
Depends on the context. Do you mean both are aware of what they are doing? If so then no because the person who is driving is drunk and the person killing people isn't drunk because you would have made that apparent if it was the case.
>>If doctors know best, why do they disagree with each other?
Where are you getting this from? I think an abortion has to be cleared by two doctors so in order for it to take place it would require both of their approval. If what you say was true why are there so many abortions taking place if doctors don't agree with one another?
>>Rape isn't sex.
Am I talking to a buffoon?
sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
No where does it state it has to be consensual. Rape can be sex since sex does not have to be legal to be sex.
>>All abortions aren't justified by marginal cases.
Like you said. Mother do it based on convenience. How is that not a justification?
>>Or, do you think killing babies at will is something we should keep? If you were aborted, you couldn't make this argument right now.
Appealing to emotion is not a good argument. I wasn't aborted and I thank my mother for that. The problem is it is still mother's choice whether or not she wants to carry something for 6 months and then for 18 years raise it. This choice if not given will mean they are force to carry a baby they do not want which will carry on their frustration to the child. Only making their lives miserable.
>>Soviet Union
When I don't have evidence about Venezuela. I am going to talk about the Soviet Union is what you are doing.
>>BTW we still have thousands of tariffs like the sugar tariff and are still the largest economy in the world
Any evidence this helps the US economy?
>>If a country puts a tariff on our cars, we should put tariffs of equal value of theirs. Don't let them take advantage of us.
You do realise if both parties don't back down there will be a loss for both countries? You are basically hoping for other countries to step down. The problem is they won't.
>>Research the VA.....https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/16/477814218/attempted-fix-for-va-health-delays-creates-new-bureaucracy
https://www.military.com/militaryadvantage/2017/12/03/va-health-leaders-failed-protect-patients-inept-doctors.html
Are you giving a point to my side? The free market is not helping veterans and the measly 10 billion doesn't help them either. Your point if public healthcare is bad because Veterans are still not being treat is laughable. It is fault of the government in charge this is the case not public healthcare like you can call it that. Public healthcare would mean these veterans would be going into medical centres and getting treated not waiting to be called in to be treated. Did you not read this: "Although the idea sounds simple enough, the fix hasn't worked out as planned. Wait times have gotten worse — not better. Compared with this time last year, there are 70,000 more appointments that took vets at least a month to be seen." Which means private companies are screwing over VA's not the government as of right now.
>>I think it should be merit based. Only allow skilled laborers. My family immigrated at one point, and they helped build this country. Don't let people in who will go on welfare and won't contribute.
Do tell me about theses immigrants that don't contribute.
Continues...
>>Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.
Maybe this explains why you are bad at debating.
>>i just think you are a ok guy
In what way and what sources I are you basing your position about me on. I would like to know what other people think of me. Certainly from people who I hardly talk to so I understand how other people perceive me without directly speaking to me.
>>i do wonder if the first sentence was intentionally a detect insult.
It is based on seeing his debate about Fake News. Do see my vote in order to understand why I said that or read the debate and see for yourself.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/638
>>i do disagree with the fascist part because he is anti-nationalist. don't know if you - it or you keep it 2 words or what
I don't know what you mean here. Who is an anti-nationalist?
>>while i do like omar as a person
What do you like about me?
>>i do dislike how he debates mostly for these reasons.
I didn't understand what you said afterwards. Can you remove the brackets?
>>You liberals are perpetual children that want the government to coddle you and tell you how to live your life while not wanting to take responsibility for your actions.
More insults. Really shows to show who the intolerable one is and can't defend his point.
>>If government healthcare is so good, how come the US is responsible for most new medical developments that these other countries all benefit from.
Shouldn't the priority of the United States be to helping its citizens before making new medical developments?
>>We don't fix our prices like those countries do, so people are given the incentive to innovate to make more money.
While also making sure the poor do not get the treatment they want.
>>They think that gender isn't biologically based**
No they don't.
>>Thank you :)
Your welcome. :(
>>It only began using free trade after WWII to economically boost pro-capitalist countries in the Cold War.
Yes capitalism made them economically the best not protectionism.
>>My views are not inconsistent because tariff revenue will allow us to lower income taxes, which gives people more freedom. Just a tradeoff.
Doesn't mean it will happen. Trump I am sure had a tax plan which most cut taxes for the higher-earners.
>>My empirical evidence that socialism sucks is that every country that has truly tried it has led to economic collapse. If you want to see government-run healthcare in America, check out the VA. Wait times are horrendous in Canada/UK.
Don't have say that I do without showing evidence. Really is a weird way you give an argument. When you realise your source is not properly sourced then you don't decide to correct it okay.
>>"Everyone is immigrants". I think you need to check out the definition of immigrant. I was born here with two American citizen parents.
At some point your ancestry can be traced backed to immigrants. Why are you not for immigration when you wouldn't be here if it was the case?
>>Immigrants should have to pay taxes for 5-10 years if they want something. We shouldn't allow people to come into our country as a public charge.
I am sure for an immigration to be a US citizen it would have to be hear for 4 year so why do you have a number to 5-10?
>>Yes, the abortion law would allow it for nearly every situation if you just go to the right doctor.
Why shouldn't it? The doctors knows best.
>>Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. If you happen to, deal with the consequences of your actions.
What if the woman was drug, rapped or not aware of what was taking place? Should the woman be allowed to abort?
continues...
>>Who is the anti-intellectual now? You can't name ONE belief? You are saying this because this is based no where in reality. You can't even prove your position.
God is the basis of your beliefs. To say otherwise is to deny your belief in God. Since your political beliefs has to start from somewhere. I am saying your political positions are based on your belief in God. It is not anti-intellectual because you are Religious and that does dictate every aspect of your life even politics.
>>Conservatives can have an honest debate with some people on the other side who actually can do it intellectually as well. All this is is confirmation bias.
Conservatives are incapable of being intellectual so for you to say that is a lie. Clear example is that CNN is Fake News debate. Confirmation bias? Ironic coming from a conservative.
>>I want to do it on gun control, because I would like to shred you. If not, that's ok, I understand you just insult instead of using facts.
I think it would be a waste of my time. Are you afraid you can't win the immigration debate? You don't need to tell me I already know.
>>There are crazy people that believe in gender doesn't exist. You believe it does, I'm guessing?
Yes gender does exist and even the "crazy" people also believe that.
>>Religion isn't really provable or disprovable
When you define God it is open to criticism. If you say God is something or did something and you do not have to proof to prove it then God doesn't exist. The rational position is to disbelieve something in order for biases not impact the decision. Difficult for Religion for how much a part it can play.
>>Climate change is real. Everyone believes in climate change. You Lefties think it is caused almost entirely by humans. We believe that it is occurring, but we don't think humans are the main cause if we are a cause at all. It varies. I think we are playing a tiny part and it isn't an issue.
Guess I can add that you are anti-science to the list.
>>Free Trade: China is very protectionist and their GDP is growing rapidly. One-way free trade helps the protectionist country at the expense of the free trade country.
My argument was about the United States not China. So do tell me how the United States can do what China does. Aren't you against big government or are you inconsistent with your views?
>>Socialism failed(because central planning is always inefficient)
You are making the claim that is not supported by your link. It states dismantlement not because of socialism. Your link also has no evidence to support their side. Want to try again?
>>Not really an anarchist. Just think we should shift spending to more important things, spend less money, and we should reform and severely limit welfare. No welfare should be available for immigrants.
So a conservative. Problem here is that immigrants would be every single person in the United States. What if the immigrant is a legal citizen?
>>That is so general. Protect health? Protect her from the anxiety resulting in raising a child? Stress if bad for your health, so it is essentially allowing anything depending on the doctor.
Guess I can add conservatives don't like nuance or complicated situations. Yes doctors make the final call because they are knowledgeable on the field.
>>We'd have to have a full debate on immigration sometime to get anywhere with that. There are a few benefits, but they are outweighed by the negatives in my opinion.
Okay. Do tell me when you want to have it.
>>Small government is kind of subjective term. It is based off of the level of control government has over our lives: Do they allow us to choose our insurance provider? Can we choose what we do with our income, or do they tax some of it? That kind of thing
Okay. I much rather the government be in control of healthcare since it works in other developed countries.
Continues...
>>I copied everything you said and replaced it with liberals. Bop.
Why can't think for yourself?
What do you mean by Bop?
>>Name one political belief I have based on religion.
I don't think I need to because you already use Religion as a basis to do anything which includes Religion.
>>You are proving my point! People on both sides can actually have an intellectual argument about both, but instead you don't do it intellectually.
Conservatives are ant-intellectual. How many times do I need to say that?
>>Let's debate on gun control. I'm sure I can have an honest debate with facts and completely disembowel your position.
I would rather it be about immigration. Gun control is boring.
>>Democrats are the party of no religion
Is this supposed to be an insult? You failed.
>>which value feelings over facts
Ironic when a conservative is losing a debate because the facts prove otherwise. Do look at your CNN is Fake News debate if you want a reminder.
>>Cenk Uger a SJW socialist
You are an SJW for advocating for conservatism. Do tell me how I am wrong. Socialist is not an insult either so do try again.
>>made up the saying "google it" and uses that as his source for everything.
Yes I did see that. A blunder on his part but the facts don't lie. Cenk is right Ben is wrong but I do concede Ben from what I remember in that Politicon debate did a better job defending his side.
>>It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes.
It is conservatwats not liberals. Remember conservatives are anti-intellectual.
>>That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things.
Wow. Totally agree that conservatives don't agree when they are wrong.
>>It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
You are copying me. Wow. You really are un-original. Your profile is copied from someone else. You words are copied from me and your Religion is from your parents. Do you have a hint of originality or am I expecting too much from a conservative? Oh wait I already know the answer. Yes I am.
If it isn't a trash debater.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
It is not me who went past talking intellectually. It is the conservatives that started that.
>>Omar, I don't know one conservative who argues on the basis of religion, so stop bringing religion up. If they do
Christianity tells you how to live your life. If you don't understand that guess you are d*mber than I thought.
>>politics shouldn't be argued from a political standpoint
Religion is used as a basis for their political beliefs.
>>The only one being irrational is the one who can't have an honest discussion with the other side.
The other side are anti-intellectual for believing in God and denying climate change.
>>Conservatives aren't the ones shouting down free speech and using violence against the other side.
No but they are the one lying about the facts. I rather have the facts than everyone have a platform for lies.
>>Conservatives advocate for intellectual discussion but prove the "tolerant left" isn't so tolerant.
Conservatives are anti-intellectual so it is ironic like your profile picture. Conservatives value feelings over facts which is why they believe in God.
>>Free trade hurts developed nations and helps developing nations due to the small labor costs.
The reason why the US is so big is because of free trade. They can exploit bad practices of developing countries like what Nike does with sweatshop workers and profit from that.
>>Don't even mention the mass starvation that results in socialist nations:Venezuela
Evidence and I would like it for Venezuela and do also find something that say because of socialism they are failing.
>>I am against taxes
An anarchist. Sheesh. Last one I spoke to was a complete annoyance. Hope you are not. So do you agree that taxation is a form of socialism?
>>NY's new abortion law
I urge you to read this: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
>>Abortion is the murder of a baby for the convenience of the mother.
Okay? So why shouldn't we allow the mother to do what is convenient with her life?
>>as you guys proclaim it is.
When did I "proclaim" this? Stop with the strawman.
>>Mass Immigration is good? You didn't provide evidence.
I think I would be wasting my time when you haven't even looked at seriously into the topic. You gave me source about welfare but didn't even more a source of immigration's impact on the economy and on jobs.
>>I'm sure you like it because the immigrants we are getting are overwhelmingly pro big government, anti-gun, etc.
Don't even know what small government is so I don't know what you are talking about to know where I stand.
>>Infinite genders
Who says this? I don't since you can't prove this to be the case.
>>You people have the audacity to call us anti-science.
Yes because of Religion and climate change.