debate

Totes: I understand you point of view infinitely more than you understand mine. You picked one narrow concept and that was the only one that mattered. The method in which you use to come to your conclusions is closed minded and idiotic. Arguing that even when used defensively they do harm - ignores one prominent possibility in that guns can be used defensively even without the firearm being fired. Should we use the "it does harm so civilians shouldn't have access to them" argument toward anything else? Comparing US deaths/100k to another country which has restricted/banned firearms is misleading because with more firearms you get more firearm death. People think that alone means "gotcha" but it really doesn't. You're going to have more deaths by drowning in places with more water or warmer weather than you will in areas with the opposite. I do agree an argument shouldn't be built around statistics and mine are not. My arguments are comprehensive and take more factors into account therefore are (more likely to) come to a more comprehensive and complete conclusion. Just factoring in "no matter what they do harm" is a very closed minded and intellectually dishonest way to go about it. I even decided to "play by your rules" and still made a substantive argument. You're too closed minded to even take another argument seriously since you're so dead set on your narrow belief and concepts. I dismiss your arguments like you do mine but we do it in fundamentally different ways which makes you a hypocrite and not me. I give "the other side" a chance and then debunk it considering more factors - you give the "other side" no chance and just dismiss it without subjecting your views to scrutiny or counter claims. Maybe this is a "cultural" difference from one country to another but if you use that debate style over here you will get shredded and vilified (for this I'm speaking mostly for "debate team" or sanctioned debates as opposed to what you might see on the news or youtube. I'll admit I came to repeat myself quite a bit but you provided nothing really new to debate on. You can say I'm wrong but you have no solid basis on why that is so other than using your closed minded methodology and few factors of material importance. You can act like I'm the problem just because of an aggressive or rude tone but the reality is in substance and I have a hell of a lot ore of that than you do. You can claim you "won" just because you said so. Since this is public discourse that others can readily access just about anybody else can go through and see that I intellectually destroyed you. I had a more complete factoring of relevant concepts and ideas, I had a more comprehensive methodology, I had a more comprehensive backing of my ideologies, I factored for counter-arguments. I can claim I won (and I am doing so) with ....... actual .....fucking.....substance.

PM I knew you were essentially playing devils advocate and putting your two cents on our methodologies of debate rather than the substance of our ideas themselves. I (to some degree) just countered you on your analysis of my methods and thoughts of doing so. I don't get all offended if other people come at me in a public forum. The way I see if it you put yourself out there you put yourself out there and you deal with the consequences of that. If multiple people want to debate gun control with me and use a lot of the same closed minded, fear driven, bigoted arguments and methodologies at me I'll just shred them all. In the end I didn't even educate anybody a little which I do regret. I would love to actually educate people on what guns really are or how people actually view them who own and treasure them. The perception of guns and gun owners by non gun owners and people who wish to regulate/ban them is very inaccurate.

ugh, insults is all you can do in a debate when you're losing. being this un-open to changing your mind is something that blows my mind. leaving this site again bc of this thread i made myself, i don't look forward opening this site up anymore

"That’s exactly the issue. Search results are skewed you do know that right? Just cause what you search up agrees with you doesn’t make it right or wrong. " i used duckduckgo

+ my point wasn't about the search engine it was the result my search engine gave.

@leo, copy and pasted my response 1. i'm gonna have to drop out of the cholesterol debate, we just won't come to an agreement on this because i will stick with my argument that your body produces its own cholesterol and having low cholesterol is much healthier than higher, and many animal products are high in cholesterol along with saturated fats. we're going around in circles at this point, so let's agree to disagree 2. Then what will it take to make you concede that animals are sentient? First it was "intelligence" then it was "creativity" then when i found scientific research it was "one study isn't enough" and then it's "a handful of studies aren't enough" What gives an Octopus sentients where as a pig doesn't? Can you stop moving the goalpost? And what does sentients have anything to do with the ability to perceive pain and suffering? How will a octopus react differently to a pig when thrown in fire that makes them so different? I honestly really really want to understand your point of view on this because i'm lost on the importance of sentients to begin with. Can you give me more evidence that they don't have sentients? Can you debunk my assertions? 3. See, you're helping my point in that same vein. Farming animals to live a life of suffering is horrible, like slavery. I'll say it again dude, veganism is about doing as little harm and suffering as you can do, and having a computer is 100% necessary in this day and age. What's more extreme, having to walk 10 miles to the local library (because cars are bad for the environment) to hop on a computer, or just eat more carbs, fruits, and vegetables? oof hard choice my dude i don't know. Again, we are going around on circles on this, might as well throw it away as well. 4. To not have to suffer undue suffering is absolutely a right. That's why we have laws in place to protect the citizens against things like rape and theft. The american court system is absolutely based in feels over reals. Should it be? No but that argument doesn't work in here. How are slaughterhouses not a part of undue suffering when we don't even need meat to be healthy? When the amount of consumption is killing the earth and human beings. You can't appeal to the laws lol. So if it was lawful to kill it's morally ethical?? Slavery was legal at one point, was that morally ethical because of that? You need give me logic to tell me why it's ok for one potential to outweigh another. 5. Slaughterhouses are not a quick kill, and if your so for "as little harm as possible" why not become vegetarian right now? Not even vegan, vegetarian. That would be the most ethical thing, or are you going to appeal to taste pleasure? Because if so then you can throw out your "as little harm as possible notion. "Depends on the slaughterhouse, a quick bullet to the brain is all but painless. Is it stressful on the way to the slaughterhouse? Possibly. But that's not much of an argument." So undue suffering isn't part of an ethics debate? Elaborate, please. And heres some footages from those "painless" slaughterhouses, my dude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz2TvpVqZ7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pixGkSFBty0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THGrMA-l8TE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh8Fp72Spe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGky2SA_q9c " It's the fact humans experience PTSD due to their own actions, that they understand what thy are doing and the ramifications both before and after them, unlike most animals." I don't understand this, humans experience PTSD due to their own actions? Pretty sure a woman who was beaten didn't develop it due to her own actions. I know your referencing the slaughterhouse workers, but they have the same form of PTSD as abused kids do, so you can't just try and distinguish them. Just as the child or woman didn't do anything to provoke the attacker, neither did the animals. About the crow thing, i direct you to my above question on what makes sentients so important about cruelty. I'll ask again because i didn't get a good enough answer, why can't i ethically skin a stray dog alive and then eat it but farm animals can be tortured? I'm not sure your stance on leather but they literally skin the animal alive there, and thats the least of what they do let me tell you. So aliens would be morally justified in farming us for food as we farm animals? Do you know what the Golden Rule is? It's that everyone should treat others as they want to be treated, so what moral grounds would these aliens have over us to eat us? i apologies if i came off as too edgy or aggressive, had to much coffee and its pretty late.

again, im up to debate anyone over the ethics of veganism name a trait that separates animals from deserving the same moral consideration we give humans

hyuk hyuk muh humaaaaaaaaaane farm slaughter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX-n-vMWmes

Ok I've been avoiding this thread for a while, but let me just interrupt and ask yestotally a couple of questions. There are a couple of points to your argument which I didnt necessarily agree with. Correct me if I am not understanding your argument correctly, but it seems like your argument is that since guns kill people, and since we know in society that people being killed is a bad thing, that we should prevent that from happening by banning guns. Is this correct? If so, then I would argue that things such as cars also kill an extremely large amount of people. Would you also be in favor of banning cars since if we were to ban cars, less people would be killed? (I'm pretty sure I know how you're going to respond, but this is more of a leading question) The next question that I have is on your point of government tyranny. Basically, your point is that we would not stand a chance in a war against the government, and so to use this as an argument is pretty ridiculous. My question here is: If this is true, then how would you explain all of the successful revolutions that have happened? Also, I think that napalm's point is more that having an armed populace makes it much more difficult for a government to take over in a tyrannical way. For example, take a look at the Vietnam war, or perhaps the fighting in the middle east. My final question is on your point of how Netherlands has a much lower number of gun deaths/100,000. I guess my problem with this is that you cant necessarily ensure that the number of homicides would fall as well. Why ban guns if doing so wouldnt lead to less killings? Yes, you could point to the fact that the homicide rate is also lower, but this is due to a number of different factors and to say that this is purely due to the fact that that netherlands has gun control laws is a bit dishonest. What you COULD do, however, is show the change in the homicide rate before and after the gun control laws were past, and if that change is significant then this could be a good argument. However, this isnt necessarily going to be true. For example, let's look at the UK. The UK banned handguns in 1997, but looking at the homicide rate over that period, it doesnt seem to me like the ban on guns had a positive effect on the homicide rate at that time. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png How do you know that a ban on guns would result in less deaths?

Oh, I see the art of debate has... degraded over the years... Well, it is not the first time such a thing has happened. These things are cyclical after all. Nonetheless, I have brushed up on modern debate tactics, and therefore wish to test my skills. As I am a one percenter, I shall be arguing on behalf of the conservatives who have been trained to do our bidding over the years. So, here I go. Ahem! You sir, lack the cerebral functions of a homosapien, and your oder is both offensive and repugnant. And thus, my ethnocentric belief is indisputably affirmed to be true. There you go, the ball is in your court once more. And I have prepared my next rebuttle, where in I shall defend one point very badly, in hopes of baiting you into an area of which I may employ another insult as a counter attack, and make you look bad in front of our audience. Oh my, this is quite riveting, if I do say so myself.