The anniversary of this is coming up. I only worked a mile away from Columbine and had driven past the school that morning. If you're looking for the best local coverage of that event, Westword magazine has been following many aspects of that story for many years.
I didn't rule out Ks although you're right, I prefer a debate on topic. In fact, I'm not a fan of Ks. Seems to me that the art of debate was developed to practice politics and running K's is no way to run a country. I've only lost to one K and that was Imabench accusing me of badly misinterpreting the seriousness of the debate, which was probably accurate.
When this is done I'd like it if you were to post what sort of K you might employ vs. this modest proposal. I admit I've thought of a couple as I was writing R1 today.
It has been done- Star Wars -> Star Wars: A New Hope is one famous example. I probably have not left sufficient ground for Con. But then, if nobody objects perhaps the time is right to start a campaign.
Go research how many people have actually been killed by AR-15's...
I did on Saturday. If I remember right the 2016 estimate was less than 200 people. I couldn't get an estimate for 2016 mass shootings but as far as I could n tell none of the highly visible mass shootings involved AR-15s in 2016.
The reasoning behind banning AR-15's is because they are considered dangerous...correct?
I think it is well established that any guns are dangerous. Brendo's question is why are AR-15s singled out particularly. I think Brendo is correct that the AR-15 just looks meaner and more militaristic than other guns that actually kill more people annually but also because AR-15s have been used to perpetrate some of the most infamous mass shootings. I probably think these causes are more consequential than Brendo does but let's agree that any gun ban should have a more rational basis than perception.
My point to you was that comparing species (AR-15) to category (cars, knives) is not particularly informational: it doesn't really tell you whether AR-15s kill more people than other rifles.
Saying that you will wait until our human(and primate before human) propensity for murder magically goes away is essentially a confession that you have no plan for gun safety. I asked you what safety measures gun owners would be willing to support in an effort to reduce gun violence and you responded don't take away my guns. How do we find a middle ground if the dialogue is always only polarities set in stone?
You could, but then I would have suffered the harm of stereotype as well as the harm of being thought of as Wyoming-like. I’d rather have a Colorado-off with the poseur in my way. I’ll take Virginia in the interrem. ( Yes, this is also humor, Alec)
B. What does right-winger even mean these days? Are these labels clearly defining a certain set of values that everybody generally agrees. I’m not so sure right-wing or left-wing mean much specific or certain in the Age of Trump.
"Let's keep some perspective folks. AR-15's, while they certainly make for eye-catching headlines, are not the greatest danger.
In 2016, over 40K people were killed in vehicle accidents. While I don't know the exact stats, my gut tells me the number of people killed by AR-15's is MUCH MUCH LOWER (I say that facetiously)."
40,000 Americans (1.25 million people) were killed in car accidents in 2016. An apt comparison would be 34,000 Americans were killed by gun. Just picking out one type of rifle and comparing to overall car accidents make no sense.
"In 2016, more people were killed by KNIVES than by AR-15s (according to the FBI)."
True, but that's like saying more people were killed by bicycles than by Kia Rios (the most accident prone brand of car in 2016). It's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Kia Rios are therefore safer than bicycles. Are we trying to identify ways to improve safety or are we just providing cover so that Kia doesn't ask why its product kils more people, so govts don't ask why Kia's product kill more people? Now apply to AR-15s
"While I respect the "March for our Lives" movement, etc the fact remains, a student is more likely to be killed in a vehicle ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL than they are by a school shooting...."
Actually, that statistic is close to tipping. 2017 was probably the first year in a century that US gun deaths exceeded auto deaths in the US in a century. The point is that 50 years of government regulation reduced an Americans chance of dying in a car by roughly 50%, autonomous vehicles could bring the present stat down another 90% by 2050. Americans have a plan for traffic safety. What is our plan for gun safety? What regulations would American gun owners support that might bring gun deaths down?
Yeah, that does not sound at all interesting. I think I'd prefer the kind of debate where there's little need to establish that the moon is real, more like a discussion of the advantages/disadvantages of our two likeliest colonial destinations rooted in an ordinary human understanding of objects we observe every day.
Or is this your way of saying you'd rather debate flat-earth?
We should give RM props for so much participation when he's also top of the leaderboard. Most folks would tend to become very picky about what debates they grab once they are at the top. RM clearly believes in the competitions of the Free Market & good on him. I for one am thankful that his time is divided while he debates me.
Well then Alec would like the Greek Govt. but the Greek people would hate the Greek Govt. and remove them from power. I think they'll chose to not be liked by you as the lesser evil.
No, but we keep coming close with increasing frequency. Donald Trump has defaulted on debt at least three times, is Trump therefore unlikable? Would you have ejected Greece from Europe?
I took it in high school but I'm sort at "The Little Prince" reading level. We should do a debate type where you have to translate your text into 3 languages and then translate it back to English to see how legible the argument remains.
Alec's & Blamonkey's interest are, of course, also welcome however much diminished in honor by their inferior positions on the leaderboard. I'm not, you know, not honored by your interest so much as I'm much more honored, obviously, by Ratman's deigning to advise my humble little offering.
Hi Somebody- strange conversing with somebody who has blocked me. You didn't respond to my request for debate topic. Let me know when you're ready. You'll get no arg from me re: my logic which is often faulty- I am here to learn. My point regarding IPCC report was that whether the link was broken or not, anybody arguing climate change should be familiar with IPCC4 and how to find a copy. If we were arguing re: the nature of the holy trinity and I cited John 23- I'd expect you to find that cite, link or no link. Saying you can't find it suggests a lack of familiarity with the primary document- one third of the reason I docked you one point on sources. I agree that Round 5 was your best round. The problem was you started the debate suggesting a focus on CO2 and ended with a general critique on IPCC. I think everybody would have enjoyed an "IPCC is a Socialist tool" thesis better and if you had focused on that from the start I think you might have fared far better. Happy President's Day!
oops- I've been blocked by somebody but I'm sure he'll read this here:
sorry to vote against your terrible piffle, somebody. So your comment is what? outing me with the shit I wrote on my own profile last week? Your comment, like your debate, is fairly fuzzy regarding intent. Hey, tho- If you want to debate somebody I'm happy to oblige- maybe something with less fact & figures this time. I love conspiracy theories and if you think the IPCC is a commie plot I bet u got a million of em. do you have a favorite false flag op? Jade Helm? something like that? Hope so. and hey, man- Happy Valentine's Day.
I wouldn't worry about it, Ram. I'm not critiquing your style. I only meant that there wasn't much new here to interest somebody's who's read a few climate change debates. Given the circumstances, I don't think you had much a venue for new args or insights and having read a few of your forum posts I have no doubt of your capacity to deliver an interesting argument.
That would be a shame. Not enough climate change skeptics on this site for my taste. I like to champion the IPCC myself and there aren't enough opponents.
BREAKING NEWS: The sea lion's style of terrestrial locomotion is called the "galumph" after Lewis Carrol's "Jabberwocky"- possibly a portmanteau of triumph and gallop.
The anniversary of this is coming up. I only worked a mile away from Columbine and had driven past the school that morning. If you're looking for the best local coverage of that event, Westword magazine has been following many aspects of that story for many years.
I didn't rule out Ks although you're right, I prefer a debate on topic. In fact, I'm not a fan of Ks. Seems to me that the art of debate was developed to practice politics and running K's is no way to run a country. I've only lost to one K and that was Imabench accusing me of badly misinterpreting the seriousness of the debate, which was probably accurate.
When this is done I'd like it if you were to post what sort of K you might employ vs. this modest proposal. I admit I've thought of a couple as I was writing R1 today.
agreed. thx for voting.
It has been done- Star Wars -> Star Wars: A New Hope is one famous example. I probably have not left sufficient ground for Con. But then, if nobody objects perhaps the time is right to start a campaign.
Well, I quite enjoy the battle scenes although they are mostly fantasy.
There are so few debates that might unzero the "TV" debate category with accuracy. It is a shame this debate missed that chance.
I feel for u. My wittiest remarks are always lost to an abandoned debate.
I don’t buy any of that. We should debate US death penalty sometime- maybe California’s recent stay.
Ok- name 3 benefits to NZ for such a change in policy. Don’t forget that NZ takes nonviolence as seriously as any nation on earth
NZ abolished death as a penalty for murder in 1957.
Go research how many people have actually been killed by AR-15's...
I did on Saturday. If I remember right the 2016 estimate was less than 200 people. I couldn't get an estimate for 2016 mass shootings but as far as I could n tell none of the highly visible mass shootings involved AR-15s in 2016.
The reasoning behind banning AR-15's is because they are considered dangerous...correct?
I think it is well established that any guns are dangerous. Brendo's question is why are AR-15s singled out particularly. I think Brendo is correct that the AR-15 just looks meaner and more militaristic than other guns that actually kill more people annually but also because AR-15s have been used to perpetrate some of the most infamous mass shootings. I probably think these causes are more consequential than Brendo does but let's agree that any gun ban should have a more rational basis than perception.
My point to you was that comparing species (AR-15) to category (cars, knives) is not particularly informational: it doesn't really tell you whether AR-15s kill more people than other rifles.
Saying that you will wait until our human(and primate before human) propensity for murder magically goes away is essentially a confession that you have no plan for gun safety. I asked you what safety measures gun owners would be willing to support in an effort to reduce gun violence and you responded don't take away my guns. How do we find a middle ground if the dialogue is always only polarities set in stone?
I like your odds
You could, but then I would have suffered the harm of stereotype as well as the harm of being thought of as Wyoming-like. I’d rather have a Colorado-off with the poseur in my way. I’ll take Virginia in the interrem. ( Yes, this is also humor, Alec)
A. I’ll take Colorado because I am that square.
B. What does right-winger even mean these days? Are these labels clearly defining a certain set of values that everybody generally agrees. I’m not so sure right-wing or left-wing mean much specific or certain in the Age of Trump.
I know Alec- I was just being a smart ass
Is that “ you don’t know what Socialism is” ( spring breakers only) or “ you don’t know what Spring Break is” ( right wingers only)?
If it’s Bernie was a better candidate 2016 thenn I’m interested. Hillary’s out for 2020 & I’m not interested in who’s a better person, etc
Is this 2016 or 2020?
"Let's keep some perspective folks. AR-15's, while they certainly make for eye-catching headlines, are not the greatest danger.
In 2016, over 40K people were killed in vehicle accidents. While I don't know the exact stats, my gut tells me the number of people killed by AR-15's is MUCH MUCH LOWER (I say that facetiously)."
40,000 Americans (1.25 million people) were killed in car accidents in 2016. An apt comparison would be 34,000 Americans were killed by gun. Just picking out one type of rifle and comparing to overall car accidents make no sense.
"In 2016, more people were killed by KNIVES than by AR-15s (according to the FBI)."
True, but that's like saying more people were killed by bicycles than by Kia Rios (the most accident prone brand of car in 2016). It's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Kia Rios are therefore safer than bicycles. Are we trying to identify ways to improve safety or are we just providing cover so that Kia doesn't ask why its product kils more people, so govts don't ask why Kia's product kill more people? Now apply to AR-15s
"While I respect the "March for our Lives" movement, etc the fact remains, a student is more likely to be killed in a vehicle ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL than they are by a school shooting...."
Actually, that statistic is close to tipping. 2017 was probably the first year in a century that US gun deaths exceeded auto deaths in the US in a century. The point is that 50 years of government regulation reduced an Americans chance of dying in a car by roughly 50%, autonomous vehicles could bring the present stat down another 90% by 2050. Americans have a plan for traffic safety. What is our plan for gun safety? What regulations would American gun owners support that might bring gun deaths down?
Christchurch is probably big news in Australia right now.
Thanks for making me google "brain in vat" which made me google "lernaean" Do you identify with hydras?
Yeah, that does not sound at all interesting. I think I'd prefer the kind of debate where there's little need to establish that the moon is real, more like a discussion of the advantages/disadvantages of our two likeliest colonial destinations rooted in an ordinary human understanding of objects we observe every day.
Or is this your way of saying you'd rather debate flat-earth?
“ I want to be Con so you can't take the side of flat-earth and stick to the topic.”
I don’t know what this means. Are you thinking about the flat earth debate in progress or....?
Thx, RationalMadman. What do you think my next debate should be? I've been thinking about something like:
Humanity should prioritize moon colonization over Martian colonization.
Braveheart is not based on a true story.
The sins of the artist need not reflect on our appreciation of the art.
well he is top of the pops. You’re prettty up there yourself.
We should give RM props for so much participation when he's also top of the leaderboard. Most folks would tend to become very picky about what debates they grab once they are at the top. RM clearly believes in the competitions of the Free Market & good on him. I for one am thankful that his time is divided while he debates me.
I doubt it.
Well then Alec would like the Greek Govt. but the Greek people would hate the Greek Govt. and remove them from power. I think they'll chose to not be liked by you as the lesser evil.
No, but we keep coming close with increasing frequency. Donald Trump has defaulted on debt at least three times, is Trump therefore unlikable? Would you have ejected Greece from Europe?
So does the US. Do you therefore not like the US Govt?
I took it in high school but I'm sort at "The Little Prince" reading level. We should do a debate type where you have to translate your text into 3 languages and then translate it back to English to see how legible the argument remains.
J'apprécierais un débat en français bien que ma grammaire ait toujours été faible. Je compte beaucoup sur Google.
Ce débat se déroulera-t-il en français?
something Greek here, Dudz
...and it's Moe's first loss. Cruel. #justice4moe
RatMan, he don’t mind.
here, have a kleenex. yeah, take two, it's fine
What excellent form and conduct this debate had. Nice work.
Thanks for the offer but I think are harms and costs are reasonably synonymous in this context
Do you remember this? I do. My first loss.
https://www.debate.org/debates/RESOLVED-driverless-cars-will-be-the-norm-within-the-next-20-years/1/
Precisely the sort of Neo-Luddism I’m seeking to assuage, Ragnar.
Alec's & Blamonkey's interest are, of course, also welcome however much diminished in honor by their inferior positions on the leaderboard. I'm not, you know, not honored by your interest so much as I'm much more honored, obviously, by Ratman's deigning to advise my humble little offering.
Thx, Ratman. As king of the board, your interest is most welcome.
Hi Somebody- strange conversing with somebody who has blocked me. You didn't respond to my request for debate topic. Let me know when you're ready. You'll get no arg from me re: my logic which is often faulty- I am here to learn. My point regarding IPCC report was that whether the link was broken or not, anybody arguing climate change should be familiar with IPCC4 and how to find a copy. If we were arguing re: the nature of the holy trinity and I cited John 23- I'd expect you to find that cite, link or no link. Saying you can't find it suggests a lack of familiarity with the primary document- one third of the reason I docked you one point on sources. I agree that Round 5 was your best round. The problem was you started the debate suggesting a focus on CO2 and ended with a general critique on IPCC. I think everybody would have enjoyed an "IPCC is a Socialist tool" thesis better and if you had focused on that from the start I think you might have fared far better. Happy President's Day!
oops- I've been blocked by somebody but I'm sure he'll read this here:
sorry to vote against your terrible piffle, somebody. So your comment is what? outing me with the shit I wrote on my own profile last week? Your comment, like your debate, is fairly fuzzy regarding intent. Hey, tho- If you want to debate somebody I'm happy to oblige- maybe something with less fact & figures this time. I love conspiracy theories and if you think the IPCC is a commie plot I bet u got a million of em. do you have a favorite false flag op? Jade Helm? something like that? Hope so. and hey, man- Happy Valentine's Day.
I wouldn't worry about it, Ram. I'm not critiquing your style. I only meant that there wasn't much new here to interest somebody's who's read a few climate change debates. Given the circumstances, I don't think you had much a venue for new args or insights and having read a few of your forum posts I have no doubt of your capacity to deliver an interesting argument.
That would be a shame. Not enough climate change skeptics on this site for my taste. I like to champion the IPCC myself and there aren't enough opponents.
BREAKING NEWS: The sea lion's style of terrestrial locomotion is called the "galumph" after Lewis Carrol's "Jabberwocky"- possibly a portmanteau of triumph and gallop.
It is has been established that sea lions are merely ionized seals.
a good argument for automatic loss and completion from first forfeiture