- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I'm not sure whether you're trolling or genuinely a halfwit. I don't 'pretend' to not be gay, as I am straight. I'm not sure where you're getting your false claims but they are utter nonsense.
I know many gay people and they are nice people. They wouldn't 'lead me to enjoy their perversion' and I'm sure many gay people don't try to turn straight people into gay people because it won't work. I'm not a homophobe because I don't have an irrational aversion to homosexuality not because I don't want to be shagged by a gay man. I'm sure most straight men wouldn't.
I'm not going to stand up to say they're wrong because there is nothing wrong that they're doing. You may feel that way because you've been brainwashed to think that they are unnatural and sinful, when they are actually natural and doing what they're naturally doing.
I'm not afraid of them, I am just a tolerant person who respects what someone does. The only things I call wrong are things that cause grief and pain to someone or something. Do gay people cause you pain? No. Do gay people cause you grief? Possibly, but for the reason that you think they are an abomination.
Just because it says gay people are abominations in your book, doesn't mean it's fact. I could say that because a book says that fish are bad means that all fish should be banished from the sea. It just makes no sense.
If gun control legislation was introduced the first measure would be to offer an amnesty to all those who possess firearms illegally, most of whom would undoubtedly qualify for a licence. That would reduce, not eliminate, but in my opinion, substantially reduce the number of guns in circulation. Then all firearms manufactured in the U.S, along with all weapons imported into Country would have to be registered showing the manufacturer, the model, it's full specification and serial number, this probably is already happening. The wholesaler would be required by law to maintain for inspection the details of all sales made to retailers, who in turn would keep records of all weapons sold to the general public along with their address and firearm licence details. Licence holders would be required by law to renew their firearm certification every three years, advise the appropriate authority of any change of address or medical condition. This is not the banning of firearms, but is a common sense approach to regulate their sale to those deemed by experts to be suitable individuals to be in charge of a lethal weapon. If we follow some arguments to their logical conclusion then we're being asked to believe that America's founding Fathers would support the provision of any type of weapon to a multi personality schizophrenic psychopath with a criminal record for shooting children. If it is argued that such a 'nut job' shouldn't be issued with a firearm licence and denied ownership of a weapon then you are already going down the road of government regulating the sale and ownership of guns. I rest my case.
Have you ever wondered why people in the Democrat party refuse to speak to or hold people accountable for irresponsible behavior?
I believe there are two sources for liberals effectively supporting irresponsible behavior. First is the well intentioned welfare state, which was meant to lift people out of poverty, which not only has clearly failed, but has also stolen the dignity of millions of now dependent Americans. Second is the more sinister intent of progressives to bring down our republic with crushing debt and eventual collapse.
If what you propose should ever exist it would be AI that would be considering in which box to put us and if we are deserving of respect.
Any such creation as a self aware artificial intelligence is pure science fiction however in the realm of such fiction we mere human animals would be in very deep trouble retaining our independent state as the dominant species.
Love as defined as affection, interest, pleasure is the glue that holds human animals together and binds us to the things we do. It is not a distraction but an essential component of our existence and is one among many other attributes that gives us purpose and direction
A federal government powerful enough to take away our constitutional rights and freedoms, is a government the founders set out to prevent. No one even knows how many hundreds of millions of guns are in this country. By what means other than tyranny against our freedom, would such control be created. NONE is the answer.
There is no equivalent to Sharia in any Christian religion. When law is bound to religious doctrine, there is almost no possibility of change or improvement to that law. This is what has kept Islam stuck in the distant past when people were brought into the street and stoned to death by their fellow citizens. Not Cool
The controversy I'm pointing to is in the news, in interviews with people on the street and in my own personal contact with people. Of course the masses still flock to see him, but division between Catholic doctrine and the average Joe is NOT improved by these comments, but rather made greater. IMO
What if you are so bad at demonstrating that your position is correct that you convince other people to change sides when they were on your side because of outside influences?
The prosecution can do such a poor job of warranting their claims that the jury would have to side with the defendant by default. In a court of law we wouldn't see this from the defense because the onus is not shared.
We have a lopsided onus in the justice system as a failsafe not to punish those that cannot prove innocence, because not being able to prove innocence does not prove someone is guilty.
I think we agree on this, it is your point but directed from the other side. We still have someone advocating for "not X", not advocating "for Y". If they fail to advocate for "not X" it is not supporting Y.
One could be so bad at showing that the other side is guilty/wrong and the defendant would be found "not guilty" but not found "innocent" or correct. Or they could have a doozy of a defense lawyer to muddle up the claim of guilt, they are not showing that someone is innocent.
Example; OJ was found not guilty by reasonable doubt, he was not proven innocent.
It is very hard to find topics that people don't already presume a stance on. It isn't begging the question because they have already formed their opinion based on outside influences.
If they form the argument using those outside influences as warrants then it may not be begging the question. If their form of argument follows what we see in the court of law where one side is already presumed correct (innocent) unless proven wrong (guilty) then it would be begging the question.
Example; "Prove to me no terrorists are coming across the border" is an argument that has been thrown around by a poster on this site. The poster has not warranted their claim that terrorists have crossed the border. They are asking you to disprove it while assuming they are right. Their argument uses the fallacy of begging the question.
That's funny, you just did the exact thing to me you accused me of doing to others.
Yes, because I want to give you a taste of your own medicine in hopes that you'll realize what an ass you've been to everyone on this site, and will have an epiphany that you should stop doing it. Notice how I don't treat everyone like I treat you. I only do it to people who come here to preach and/or troll. I'm more than capable of civil and constructive debate, like this and this, but I know that it's impossible to have a civil debate with you, so I don't bother most of the time.
This is why I banned you before. You are the judgemental one who ridicules me for daring to speak to moral values, or having Conservative opinions, etc.
My ridicule of you has nothing to do with your moral values or conservative opinions. I actually agree with some of them. I ridicule you for the following reasons.
1. You rarely, if ever, participate in civil debate. Nearly everything you say is seething with vitriol.
2. If someone disagrees with you, you just hurl insults and ban them.
3. You rarely back up a claim with sources, and when people ask you to you usually don't respond or just insult them.
4. You somehow manage to twist every argument into a debate about the evil democrats aborting babies. The debate could be about which one is cuter, kittens or puppies, and you would still find some way to make it about democrats and abortion.
5. You twist people's words in an attempt to pigeon hole them into your preconceived extremist stereotypes.
6. When you are asked a question, you dodge it and then go off on some rant littered with insults.
You really need to spend time reading your argument history, and make sure you read it as if someone else wrote it. I'm sure if you saw someone else behaving the way you do, you would be disgusted by their behavior.
I have NEVER been so arrogant and judgemental to tell someone they should be banned from this site.
You are not only the most judgmental person on this site, but you're also the second most judgement person on the site, because I'm almost positive you are also Saintnow.
I don't think you should be banned from the site. I used that as an example to show you how your bad apple analogy is a poor one, because if you truly think one bad apple will ruin the bunch, then you think Andy should be banning all bad apples, which would be everyone that disagrees with you.
Now in all your infinite wisdom, if everyone thought as you and wanted me banned from this site, WHY ON EARTH DO THEY STALK MY EVERY ARGUMENT AND COMPLAIN WHEN THEY ARE BANNED FROM MY ARGUMENTS?
There are multiple reasons.
1. People like drama
2. People are annoyed by you, so they want to annoy you in return
3. Because of #1 people easily fall for troll bait. I think there is a good chance that you are a troll/puppet account, but other times I think not because most trolls don't put much effort into it. So if you are a troll, you are a very dedicated one.
It is you who wants people completely banned from this site if they have Conservative opinions.
I already explained that I don't want you banned from the site. Even if I did it wouldn't be because you have conservative opinions, it would be because you're a jackass to everyone. See, this is the problem with you, you try to turn everything into a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Well guess what, I agree with Republicans on some issues, and I agree with Democrats on other issues. Political labels are stupid and divisive. Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, "The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you." I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, Communist or a Voodoo Priestess from Mars. As long as you can participate in civil discourse and listen and respond to other people's points, then I'm more than happy to discuss things with you. So, if you want people to stop ridiculing you, then stop being such a dick to everyone. It's that simple. Maybe you should take some lessons from Daver. He's a Republican, but unlike you he is actually capable of civil discourse. I wish there were more Republicans on the site, because too many people on the site have the same opinions as me, so there aren't enough people to debate with.
If you ever create an argument, PLEASE ban me if I insult you for no good reason.
I will, but the thing is you don't just ban people who insult you, you ban just about everyone who disagrees with you.
I stopped banning you for a time to see if you have changed your spots. YOU HAVE NOT!
As soon as you start acting civil to people and actually debating instead of preaching, I will stop ridiculing you. You have my word.
most, or at least a large percentage of, addicts (which are simply habitual sinners with a pet sin they enjoy) will admit that what they are doing is wrong because they know it's not good. A cycle of shame and seeking relief from that shame drives them into repeating their sin, and then feeling bad about it, then doing it again so maybe the pleasure of it will make them feel better, then feeling ashamed.....
The more difficult addictions are mental addictions by which a person makes themselves feel good by telling themselves that they are good for all the good things they do and say and feel...pure pride desiring to stand without and in defiance of God, making themselves believe they can jump off of a building and fly into eternity forever free from Hell's fire.
OOOPS, said I wouldn't post here again...I'll try to remember this time. Really I just got happy about giving Cartman another down vote.
The author first said the second person had repented. You can't repent without being honest. At the end, they said the second person was a liar, therefore the second person NEVER repented, and the AUTHOR is the liar for saying they repented before he said the second person was lying. They were either repenting or they were lying, you can't do both at the same time....you can't repent without being honest about what you did wrong.
I think both the first and the second person are equal in this scenario, and the Author of the debate is the same as them because the Author lied when he said the second person repented..they never repented because they were lying. To say they repented is a lie if they were lying and only pretending to repent.