debate

yeah, but that's an argument in favor of me, right? lol you don't know what would've happened if the jews had guns, but it happened. you need to learn from wars, not make hypothesis's about what would've happened if the jews had guns. his argument is this: if the jews had guns they could defend themselves that's a perfectly, solid, rhetorical argument, and thus i view it as such. it's not about the fact that the argument is right or wrong, or if you know it could've happened, it's the intention of the argument. what the argument wants to show you. i suppose certain hypothesis's are wrong, but you can prove them wrong with logic if they're wrong, that is, if you're good at debating. i have a debate where i participated in, this was a competition that lasted a weekend but the debate itself was only about 6 hours. the rest was prep time. this is all in english, but beware of bad english accents. i'm also in this video, listed as "Johannes Koning". this is not your typical high school debate, this is an Upper house debate. https://c.connectedviews.com/05/SitePlayer/gemeente_breda?session=16165 edit: this is a debating competition of EYP The Netherlands, the prelim rounds. i didn't get through but this debating competition kinda sucks anyways, this is just what i have got video of. edit2: johannes koning is my real name. edit3: i've gotten way better at debating since then.

Also one like Napalm could even argue that cops and those who protect us come in response to a call so can’t immediately be active on scene and that’s why citizens aren’t or intervention through fire arms exists so anyone with a gun can stop a person from committing a lethal crime if there are no first responding cops near by. He might even say better have the person taken down injured or what ever by a lawful gun user as quick as possible would mitigate the amount of innocent bystanders being harmed. Meaning Napalm would say that you can’t always trust in your societal forces unless they were literally everywhere. He might say something like this I heard that point before

i generally don't really like to participate in debates, even though (if i may say so myself) i'm pretty good at debating. it's because i don't like to debate. because i feel that, whatever i do, people won't become enlightened. there will always be people who don't understand, people who are close-minded, obnoxious people, situations that are easier to believe than certain others. ^<= this might be a very close-minded thing to say, but personally i'm not happy when i convince people of my argument. i'm just eager to learn from them, that's all.

"Meaning Napalm would say that you can’t always trust in your societal forces unless they were literally everywhere." well, you should be able to. US is a shitshow, and it shows. edit: this is why people want gun laws, because the US is currently failing, even though it's getting better again after the crisis (people think that's because of trump, but it's just that it's after a crisis that it's getting better, it might be because of trump, but it might also be because of obama or the rise after the crisis, nobody can really tell)

I mean you can learn from wars but also know that there are other more current things to think about. On the terms of debate I think the issue is If your basing a win solely on intention then it becomes not about truth and resoloution which for some ppl, who’s minds are generally conservative would get mad at. Good intention are the pathway to hell would be the saying used in response. I’d be weary though cause someone might call your logic more or less being rational rather than purely logical. Similarly that story where ancient whatever they were thought their were only 4 elements on this planet which ofc was incorrect as the table of elements exist to prove other wise but at the time it was logical and ppl agreed to it, same with the earth being flat. They thought it was logical and created a general consensus till someone came along and presented evidence in contrary to the logic of Well there might be an edge and we are not upside down.

I mean sure your in a debate club at school but since you don’t like debate you probably wouldn’t likesome of the debates I’ve seen or had to deal with Heated blood sports, watching people win screaming matches, watching people fight twitter and meme wars, discord admin mod drama leading to chaotic side takings, debates in gaming going haywire.... Thos are the kinds of stuff I seen Things that rely either on solely on facts or who wield what ever they have in words as a weapon. Think of it as no holds bar drama that goes to shit really fast but then you realize every last one of those things starts out with a disagreement and goes haywire So the only way to win ends up not only being the most logical, but how much you can socially pull to your side because the goal isn’t to convince who your arguing with but it is to trap them and force people underneath them to slowly remove themselves from your opponents side or bring them to your side which devalues the person you are against. It’s almost as if anime betrayals exist in real life seeing this time and time again XD although it mostly stems from YouTube

https://youtu.be/JvAbophptmM I mean here’s a gun video that kinda just runs on satire and logic although 2yrs old. Not that I agree with it but it’s someth from the conservative libertarian side.

Since you know about debate Are you aware of the use of Subversive tactics, Dragging, Stringing, Minor derailment, and framing that have been employed here? I think Lamby used some of this

Lol I’m tired. I’m spazzing and created a literal metaphorical strawman attached to a cable wire being pulled into a wood chipper... Sorry for all the odd messages yes totally.

I think the last thing I will add is that there was a dude at a church and someone came in with Kevlar and rifles to shoot up a church or something, then an older man got his gun and got into a fire fight as well as I think his daughter calling the police using an AR as well as car chase the aggressor with the police also. I think Steven Crowder and a couple others did an interview of this guy of this incident last year about a civilian as s first responder. But then again one could say that’s just “one” account and there are other places where a person had shot up a church against ppl but they had “no” guns and if there was some gun-control the aggressor wouldn’t have the gun Eh but it all just comes down to intention and ideological opinions right?