The right accepts reality as it is. The left does not.

The left tries to make changes, working towards a utopian reality. The right on the other hand, accepts flaws and shows no enthusiasm towards changing them.

Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. ;)..........................................................................

Why would you rather choose punishment rather than solving the problem? this two are different. You cannot produce any good result on punishment

It's from a perspective of morality, that I'm talking about. Punishment, as death penalty in this case, is a very certain solution to the problem of "specific crimes" as mentioned.

No it isn't! ;).....................................................................................

No it can't!

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. ;)

Well! it CAN be! ;).....................................................................................

An argument isn't just contradiction. ;).......................................................

AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument! ;)......................................

Yes, it is! I came here for a good argument! ;).......................................

no it isn't ;) ,..................................................................................................

No it isn't! It's just contradiction! ;)...............................................................

Yes it is ;)....................................................

Yup you never made any ;).................................

Awww Of course I did ............................................... ;)

Awww... how cute...........................................;)

He can, can’t he? ;) .........................................

agreed that those are two different things altogether. If you “intend” to not help him, taking morality into consideration, you are responsible. The debate doesn’t talk about what happens, it talks about the position of making the decision to help that person.

Are you saying that he doesn't have an imaginary friend and he is thus trying to steal yours? ;)

Nope. I'm saying you finally have someone to talk to other than yourself. ;)

Shhh, listen. I think he is trying to shoe horn his way into our conversation ;)

Nah, he honked at you. ;)

I know we agreed that we did not have to follow the sketch verbatim but there's nothing about Wait... did you hear that? Someone is trying to break in on our conversation. ;) here: http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

Doesn't matter ;)

Wait... did you hear that? Someone is trying to break in on our conversation. ;)

I'm sure even you didn't hear that unless you got back to talking to yourself ;)

Now let's get another thing clear: I most definitely didn't disagree, but you did. ;)

I told ya ;)

Oh look, this isn't an argument! ;)

yup, you never made arguments ;)

Oh no you didn't! ;)

Oh yes I did. ;)..............................................

Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you! ;)

Now let's get another thing clear: I most definitely didn't disagree, but you did. ;)

BTW, no it isn't. ;)

Exactly what I said, it isn't. ;)

Ah! Just the five minutes. ;)

So five minutes it is and then you can get back to talking to yourself ;)

Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? ;)

Now that you supposedly know you're not talking to yourself, you decide. ;)

Yes, it is ;)

Ofcourse it isn't ;)......................................................

No it isn't ;)

yup it isn't................................................;)

Get your cat some catfood................................................

That's just crazy talk ;)

Awww ;)..........................................

Why do you copy everything I type and why so many dots ;)

So that you know you're not currently talking to yourself and many dots cause there's much more to say....;)

Alright!!! ;)

That's more like it....................................................

Who else, if not me ;)

Well, there are many, but right now it's you alright ;)

Of course you do ;)..............................................................

I know, right ;)

You sure seem to know ;)........................................

I challenge the person with the most points on this site to a debate.

Come on fellas, the man wants to talk to himself, let him do it in peace.

It looks like an amazing step towards having a generation that's not judgemental.

While I agree that respect at it's bare minimum has to be a right, the kind of respect you're looking for need not be a right.

Just cause you've never seen atheists disputing Muslims, doesn't mean they don't. This has come up probably cause you've been debating on this site in which there are mainly christians and atheists.

Math and science cannot be separated. The more you know science, the more you know that science needs math. To have something like science vs math would make no sense as the existence of the two depend on one another.

ROFLs and LMMAOOs sure won't................................

Sorry but I think #2 will describe the pro death penalties 😏

seems totally irrelevant..

Although there has been quite a debate till today about an "objective" morality of some sort, Science and morality can, in fact coexist.. While science tells you things the way they are, morality in my opinion, is objective in it's most agreeable statements, in other words, if someone would look into "morals" one can find that it all comes down to survival as a species.. we're genetically hardwired to survive, and we can draw comparisons to how groups in the wild behave and find out they too, have a certain innate sense of how to survive as a species. With all that said, while one can reach a point where you have two differing suggestions proposed by science and morality, you're the king and they're your ministers, choose to execute which best suits you.

Sure will! and you too....................................................

I think more debates on science and philosophy could make this place of value to students coming in.

I say P.E is important for the kids who aren't much into keeping themselves healthy, it might seem quite a pressure to them during the P.E hours, but it'll give them some physical exercise which in turn might even end up becoming a healthy habit to few.

1)I think the ones who can think to an extent will realize that their existence depends on the existence of a society and hence we shouldn't generally see massacres.

2)If we do have a murderer, anyone who knows so will try to eliminate the murderer just cause of the fear of being killed(not always though, but sure is a possibility) and if the person chooses to kill the murderer, would end up becoming a murderer and there is a chance this cycle could go on.

3)As of the above point, it's a possibility provided that there aren't ways to contain murderers. Which brings me to the point where people would gather around and find better ways to stay alive by doing things necessary to not let people kill anyone randomly. A suggestion could be making the murderer blind.

4)If seeing someone and killing them is also applied to people seeing through cameras, warfare just got an update.

It all comes down to what percentage of the population cares about the bigger picture of surviving as a species..

I think anyone who isn't depressed and is in a clear state of mind should have the right to choose how and when they will die.

They technically do exist. We've defined them as a moral or legal entitlement, but often rights are violated, not just due to others denying you a right, it's also the case in some places that people don't know what their rights are.

With improvements in genetic engineering, the shortcomings of cloning can be outdone, and once that happens, it'll surely be a very benefiting aspect in medical sciences.

If not for any medical conditions and if not as an act of self defense, Any crime that directly or indirectly kills people should be given the punishment of death penalty imo..

What you call poor execution of law, is simply reality. Imposing a law is not the same as imposing compliance. It never will be. There is a black market even in totalitarian North Korea. There is a law against felons having guns, and drug users having guns, and yet they still have guns. The people most responsible for murder are already banned from having guns. But you think shifting the law to ammo is the key? There is no reason to think that will work any better. You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.

Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".

The argument for banning real ammo is much the same as an argument for banning guns. The primary difference is that you know what a gun is but you can't seem to understand what a less lethal round is.

But hey, since your idea is fucking stupid, I guess society might as well suffer from its problems. Ignoring your idea will be one less problem to suffer from.

Please take the last word. I'm done with you.

If you're saying making laws are useless cause reality is something else, why even have laws in the first place? Now that's fucking stupid. Oh wait, that's not the first shitty implication you've made. You are constantly denying the fact that a different approach to a given problem can possibly be a solution.

Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".

lol murder is illegal already. Oh and wait, that was among the first basic laws to be made, looks like your argument supports my idea for a law to be made.

You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.

If I did have the power to improve implementation, I'd give every ounce to it. But yeah, I can't change ppl's mindsets so until ppl don't think like me, there can't be change.

And anyway, even if we talk about implementation of law being difficult and henceforth don't make a law, we might as well make all crimes legal. lol let's ban murders backfired alright xD.

But hey, cause everything you've said till now has been fuckin stupid, I'm done here.

If this is your comprehension after reading “Ammo is designed to put holes in things”, then I think I see the problem.

Intent leads to why things are made and hence bullets were made to kill which I've been typing for the past 4 arguments or so now. A definition is a semantically perfect description. Oh I do see the problem now.

There’s no such thing as a non-fatal round. When the shooter gets to you’re corner with his very lethal rounds, you can hope to protect yourself with less lethal rounds. More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.

There's no such thing as anything if that's the case. A non-fatal round is one that's not(intended to be) fatal. The last snip from my previous argument still holds good I see.

More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.

do you mind googling the word "effective" cause I've quoted that definition already and it seems my last snip still holds true.

Felons are already banned from having guns. Yet they have them. Most gun deaths are from gang violence. Most gang members are felons and drug users, which are both already banned from having guns. Banning those same people from having certain ammo will not stop them from having said ammo.

1)Re read my previous argument about felons.

2)Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic.

First, that makes cops potential felons. Better take their rounds too. Second, since you cannot stop potential felons (everyone) from having guns, what the fuck makes you think you can stop them from having real ammo for that gun? Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.

Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.

I'm sorry that you don't get stuff at the first go, but that's all I can say about it.

Cops are potential felons too. Never fuckin denied it. The thing is a person with a fucked up head is less likely to become a cop in the first place. Even if one does, There are shit loads of ways that can keep every cop under watch.

Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.

Again, as I said, poor execution is not my business to worry about.

If there can't be changes in a society, it might as well suffer from it's problems.

Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.

Believe me I could've done that 3 arguments ago, but yeah I do support making changes, in this case tediously explaining my perspective, but yeah, you're not into changing anything as far as I see.

Your drink is punch.

My drink's a vodka.

No. Ammo is designed to put holes in things, which happens to be the most effective way of stopping a living threat. A larger round will stop a larger threat (or a small threat more effectively). So if you go on a savannah tour, even though you aren’t hunting, I recommend you go with a guide that has a big gun to stop big threats.

So your argument is, rounds were never made to kill. A gun is meant to kill, not stop threats. The whole purpose of inventing a gun was to use it as a replacement to other primitive weapons like the swords which were made to kill in a war, and hence the replacement(guns) were also made to kill. The fact that it stops threats is an implication from what it does, but the purpose of invention was to kill.

In case of an active shooter, children and office workers are told to run hide fight. In that order. If it comes to that last option, will workers or teachers be better off wielding chairs or...?

bring the man down if inevitable. obviously with the non fatal round.

Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have! That way they are on equal footing with law abiding citizens! It’s the reality of real ammunition that put all those holes in your punch drink.

yeah!

Now I can assume you've agreed to giving rpgs to felons just like you have assumed what my take is.

Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have!

Any civilian can turn into a felon, hence, you can never stop potential felons from having guns. Which is why, we need to have non fatal rounds. Looks like you're the one with holes in your punch drink here.

Rather than addressing my points, your pretending I haven’t made them.

Let's just say that went above your head.

Inn glad you’ve switched to using the term “less lethal rounds” as opposed to “non-lethal rounds”

non fatal is perfect.

All ammunition, including less lethal ammunition, is used to stop the threat.

A 50 caliber is used to kill not stop.

Less lethal rounds can do pretty well, when the conditions are right and they are utilized properly. But pretty well isn’t good enough in a potentially lethal encounter. Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.

nobody's going to war in a self defence situation. someone comes at you with a gun with non fatal rounds and is a psychopath, I'd personally tactically avoid until help and bring the man down if inevitable. Note I'm talking about civilians here, not trained assassins.

Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.

killing someone while you can take down a person alive is far more effective in a self defence situation, sure.

My point about the lethal option is that less lethal rounds are a luxury which is only available because someone else is right there with lethal force protection.

Think about it, that just supports my line of arguments and suggestions.

Do you really think that mischarecterization of my position even looks like it holds water? A handgun is not an RPG. Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.

Well, it held my drink.

Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.

And to cause muscle spasms and take ppl down, not put a potential hole through someone.

At least the aggressor may not be killed. Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death. If it weren’t the case, why stop with civilians? Why not make all cops carry only less lethal rounds? Nevermind, I’ve already answered this.

Cops need lethal rounds and I haven't disagreed to it, but not all civilians are cops and surely haven't been trained as cops.

Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death..

Which is exactly why we need all civilians to have non fatal rounds and not variable lethality of rounds, best solution being non fatal rounds, which doesn't kill anyone unlike giving anyone the potential to kill anyone with ease. That way, even the one attacking can't kill others.

That’s why they call them less lethal rounds. Cops know that less lethal rounds are far less effective.

Effectiveness is a measure of how well something works to what it was made for. The less lethal rounds are not meant to be lethal. they're meant to put down the attacker which they do pretty well.

Cops aren’t going to approach a lethal situation without a lethal force option.

I never said they would approach a lethal situation without a lethal option. I said they use less lethal rounds. What it implies is that less lethal rounds are used when they are to be used. If cops can use them to capture criminals, it sure does pretty well against an attacker where your need of the hour is self defence.

If you don’t have to fight, don’t fight. If you don’t have to shoot, don’t shoot. But if you do have to shoot, then the threat is unavoidable and lethal, so you better not bring bean bags to the shootout.

oh sure, let me bring in a bloody rpg and kill some ppl who aren't even involved. After all, it's self defence isn't it?

Psychopathic shootouts wouldn't do half as much damage to ppl if regular rounds were not allowed for civilian use. ppl would be hurt but not killed.

And to make it clear, I'm strictly talking about self defence situations, not some gang war out on the streets.

They make guns that are specifically non-fatal. They are called paint ball and air soft.

I was talking about guns that are meant for self defense, not playtime guns. Even toy guns are non fatal but that clearly isn't my point.

Even so, less lethal rounds are not as effect at stopping a threat as are regular rounds

you're telling that rounds made for a specific purpose doesn't serve that purpose unless, by stopping a threat you mean killing/ almost killing the threat.

To suggest that they should make ammo that is just as effective but not lethal is fine, but then to suggest a law requiring these currently non-existent rounds is not fine.

Such rounds are used by law enforcement. And they sure as hell work.

If you don’t want the responsibility of possibly killing someone in self defense, then don’t carry a gun, learn to punch well, learn to kick well, or workout for strength. Carry pepper spray.

Or you could find a better solution like hiding and calling cops, but clearly that's not the point of debate here.

Guns don’t fire non-lethal rounds. To avoid lawsuit for pretending rubber billets (and the like) are non-lethal, agencies that use them call them “less lethal”.

That is my suggestion, make guns which are specifically for self defense and not fatal. I mean, bit of manipulation of tech could restrict guns from firing fatal ammo.

Furthermore those that use them have lethal backup because less lethal ammo isn’t as effective.

when the objective is self defense, you don't have to kill anyone. 2-3 shots should easily put anyone on the floor. I mean, such rounds are made for that very specific purpose, it doesn't make sense to call it less effective.

For gun owners, it makes sense to not choose ammo of variable lethality and effectiveness.

It should for the law which is why they should make one such. Cause by giving people fatal guns you literally are giving the person the ability to use it to kill someone and possibly add complications to determining the actual position and state of the event.

Yep you can bet Barack Obama's security force have non fatal rounds LMMFAO

I'm sure they need a fatal one for you.

Isn't the sole purpose of civilians having weapons self defense? In which case I think it's wise only to have guns which strictly operate on non fatal rounds.

Specifying specific roles seems to be a key to clarity in the relationship in 2018 as people of today's generation understand the fact that there shouldn't be gender specific roles in a relationship, this way, they can live up to their expectations from one another and not just assume stuff which would obviously lead to conflicts.

I disagree as there shouldn't be specific gender roles.

Which is exactly why they need to specify what roles they will be playing.

Have you noticed since Trump was elected, we seldom hear of ISIS these days.

This title implies more than what you think it should.

Did the mother ask to produce the baby?

Well, the baby couldn't ask for anything for sure.

People killed them for even lesser than that, oh wait, for nothing.

While innate talent does give people a sort of a headstart, it doesn't mean that others can't catch up to them. With dedication, and the right mindset people can even outdo the "genius" in some.

Trying to figure out what your insane response has to do with fitness.

Quit trying, you lack the brain cells to figure out.

"Give a man a mask and he'll be his true self"

-someone idk

You're shit. I would not have said so if it was not true.

While complexity might not mean intelligence, with intelligence comes the ability to analyze data and process it to different depths and with the increase in depth of processing, comes complexity.

It probably hurts the right's puny little ego.........................................

If the suspect is to be convicted, a person is in the position of weakness, i.e faces the punishment for a crime which that person may/may not have convicted. But by letting the person walk away, nobody gets punished. Though we might not have punished the criminal, we've stayed away from punishing a possibly innocent person. To risk a possibly innocent person doesn't seem rational just cause we want to punish the right offender.

Robots can make points that are strictly from the logical perspective. There are many cases in debates in which there is a need for emotional priorities to be considered. So until robots can "feel", nope.

Nazism is left wing and socialist and in support of liberty.

Dead. Lmfao

I don't believe either of whether someone would/wouldn't help a drowning man, that's a decision for the person to make. To "help" or not as mentioned in the title, is a question of morality and hence if someone refuses to help with the intention of seeing the person die provided that the person watching could've helped, that person would be responsible.

Slavery in terms of what it has been, is wrong as it denies a person his/her rights. However, consensual slavery shouldn't be an issue.

I'm sure this site was amazing when you were off this site watching porn. Hope you keep it that way.

I've observed that over the past few months, people seem to have deserted this website, (including me but that's a different story) the few that were good on this website no longer seem to be active..

What tells you that it is my prime duty to save the person?

Given the fact that america's a secular country, it shouldn't fall....

Thanks for elaborating my point, and how the person has landed in that state is a question for the person himself, while I don't say that pushing the person is not a reason to hold the person responsible, but The debate title makes it clear that the person is already in the state of drowning and "help" is what is questioned, which a killer wouldn't. So It is obvious that this "killer" put the person in a water body to kill the person and that's obvious for everyone. What isn't obvious is the fact that if you are a person who just randomly happened to see this person drowning, and you refuse to help, will you be responsible for the death? I prefer answering the unobvious, as it is the unobvious that make debates, not what's obvious and agreed by everyone upon.

In my opinion, it is a right when we talk about nations with economy that can support education.. If a country isn't capable of supporting education, it can be seen as a privilege rather than a right.

"Wet" is a state of a material other than the liquid which causes it.. the liquid is the cause and wetness is the effect...

Sounds to me like you are a hurt animal biting the hands that try to help you.

I admire your persistence. The fact is, this animal needs no help.

So you boast of being a beast

I don't. Intimidating, am I?

and apparently want to be one forever

Isn't that obvious?

Keep on your way and you will wake up in Hell.

I woke up in my bedroom this morning..

Since you seem set on embracing your doom, there is no point in wasting time trying to reach out to you like you were worth more than an animal.

Says the person who's triggered enough to dispute with the same argument over 4 times..

It's your future which you should be concerned about. You are opposing your own life, choosing death, and believing or hoping you cannot be stuck in eternal dying in the fire of Hell. You want to be a beast forever? Well, I guess you are succeeding. It is not me who is cursing you. By fighting against God, you are making yourself accursed. You are incurring God's wrath rather than seeking His mercy. That is your choice; you have been persuaded to be opposed to God who is your only hope of life......whoever taught you or set that example for you is not your friend. You I can tell how that you can be saved, them........well, I guess you care about them no more than you care about yourself.

Someone's triggered..

So you know for certain that you are uncertain.....in other words, you are sure that you do not know what you are talking about and you believe it is impossible for you to know what you are talking about.

I can try to explain things but it'd be a waste of time, so I'll just say you're wrong with what you just said.

I know what I am talking about, and I am certain that you can know the same but you don't want to know because you love your sins more than life and do not care if they take you into the fire of Hell...you fly in your sins like a moth to the flame thinking it is good.....basking in your uncertainty thinking the warmth of the fire ahead is pleasant rather than a warning. Laugh all you want.

I've been laughing ever since I've first read your arguments..

So you boast of being a beast, and apparently want to be one forever. Keep on your way and you will wake up in Hell. Since you seem set on embracing your doom, there is no point in wasting time trying to reach out to you like you were worth more than an animal.

You should consider working on narration of curses in horror movie, you have a bright future.

If you are certain that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is correct, then you are showing that things can be determined with certainty...you do sound like you have determined with certainty that the principle is correct.

The one thing I know for certain, is that uncertainty exists.

"Reason has brought science" is a nonsensical statement. Science is the observation of nature, we have the power of reason to investigate nature's reality and communicate our observations.

we have the power of reason to investigate nature's reality

should I laugh?

You want a cup of coffee with God like a wanted criminal wants a cup of coffee with a cop. Your big mouth does not prove that God is not there and you are free in your crimes.

So you fail to address the fact that god can personally be known. hmm..

Do you see where you are going? Genius? You don't want to know that your end, as you stand, is torment in flames forever. You want to believe that you are exonerated in death. Try to use your noggin for your own sake.

I'll take that as a compliment, the first two questions.. and as of everything you said after that, awwww so cute.

Definitions, words, are all made by us. To say that I'm alive would mean there are things I can differentiate myself from, hence assigning it a word that explains my state of being "alive" so the key factor in calling something alive, is that it's properties are different, hence things that which are "not alive" decided the creation of this word. What makes us us, is that which is not us...

I'm alive because there are things around me which can be classified as non living...

I'm 17 tbh....................................................................................

The beast has only one account, he doesn't need more than one, unlike others....

I regret not having the maturity to work for what I wanted and not exposing myself to better competition as a kid..