CreateDebate


Debate Info

41
28
Wingnuts Hazlenuts
Debate Score:69
Arguments:57
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Wingnuts (28)
 
 Hazlenuts (23)

Debate Creator

Nomenclature(679) pic



Gun Nut Logic: I Defended Myself At Chess By Checkmating My Opponent

Only in America is there a population stupid enough to not understand the pretty basic difference between attack and defence.

Wingnuts

Side Score: 41
VS.

Hazlenuts

Side Score: 28
3 points

Some definitions of defense:

“A means of protecting something from attack”

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/defence

“means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or another”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defense

This isn’t a logic problem, it’s your poor vocabulary problem.

If you have to punch/shoot someone in the face to protect yourself, and you are charged with assault/murder, you can claim self-defense in court and potentially be acquitted. This is because the courts, and everyone else but you, understands that aggressive action is sometimes required to protect yourself, which is a form of defense by definition.

You need to work on your vocabulary before you make attempts at logic big guy. But good effort.

Side: Wingnuts
WinstonC(782) Banned
2 points

Nom doesn't care about the meaning of words or logical thought, he cares about twisting words so that he can appear to be correct. Obviously if you take an action in order to protect yourself from an immediate threat it is a defensive action.

Side: Wingnuts
0 points

Nom doesn't care about the meaning of words or logical thought

Winston, if you are going to launch baseless smear attacks against me instead of addressing the logic in what I have been saying then I'm just going to ban you. Grow up, you tantrum-throwing imbecile.

Obviously if you take an action in order to protect yourself from an immediate threat it is a defensive action.

Shooting someone in the face is not what "protecting yourself" means. Do you even speak English? Shall I come around and "protect myself" from the immediate threat of your online cyberbullying by stabbing you in the eye? You stupid twat.

Side: Hazlenuts
1 point

This isn’t a logic problem, it’s your poor vocabulary problem.

Hi Amarel. If you continue to hide cheap ad hominem attacks behind the false pretence that you have reasoned them out then I will ban you from the thread. I opened this thread to mock you for not understanding the difference between the two opposites of attack and defence. Posting the dictionary definition of defence does not debunk my premise that you do not understand the difference between attack and defence. It outright confirms it, since none of the definitions you have chosen include the words, "shooting someone in the face", and yet you seem to be acting as if they do. That isn't debate. That's just you being a dishonest imbecile.

If you have to punch/shoot someone in the face to protect yourself

Then you are attacking a threat in order to neutralise it. A gun does not protect you from bullets, or from anything else. It is not a form of protection against injury. Shields and armour are examples of things which protect you from injury. You are wantonly turning language upside down and then accusing me of having a problem with the English language, which is especially stupid given that I have a degree in journalism and you are a fucking Hebrew.

Side: Hazlenuts
Amarel(2273) Disputed
3 points

“Shooting someone in the face” is not precluded from being a means to protect oneself, which means it is not precluded from qualifying as defense. Which is why it is a legal argument.

PS.

Bullets don’t attack people.

Side: Wingnuts
1 point

A gun does not protect you from bullets, or from anything else

Sure it does. I kill the man shooting at me, the bullets stop coming at me and so does the man firing the bullets.

Tell us which part you can't comprehend.

Side: Wingnuts
1 point

He's ignoring the definitions of "defense" and committing a false equivalency that is beyond the pale. Why? He has the brains of a cucumber.

Side: Hazlenuts
1 point

He's ignoring the definitions of "defense"

I am DEPENDING on the definition of defence. Defence is an antonym of attack, and you are pretending they are synonyms.

Opposite for attack: aid, defense, flight, protection, resistance, retreat, shelter, shield, support, surrender, sustenance.

http://www.opposite-dictionary.com/a/attack

and committing a false equivalency that is beyond the pale.

So let me get this straight a moment. You conflate attack and defence, but I commit the false equivalency? How does that work again? Never mind. Don't tell me. It's fairly obvious that you have no idea what a false equivalency even is, and are simply dropping phrases which you think will make you sound refined, edgy and clever.

Side: Wingnuts
2 points

The whites started it, they made the first move, so now the blacks gotta corner they tails.

War is ugly, man. The fact that you don't bust a cap in the king just goes to show you how civilized the game of chess is. You know, the queen probably wouldn't even be involved if she didn't feel like her status made her some kind of immortal warrior Xena wannabe. You're kind of asking for it when you're pulling some kung fu on all the horses and men.

Chess is classical orchestral music civilized. Drink red wine by the fireplace civilized. Monocle civilized.

An armed society is a civilized society. A polite society. Right?

I like Texas. People respect the right to bear arms in Texas. I think Texas gets it. America? Ya'll are doing it wrong.

Apparently, the rest of you states think that carrying a sword isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. I guess they didn't have swords in mind back then when they wrote the 2nd amendment, never mind assault rifles!

Side: Wingnuts
2 points

Hello N:

Couple things..

I dunno what the dictionary says about defense, but in any case, what matters is the legal definition.. Here ya go.

In states WITHOUT stand your ground laws, self defense means that, when confronted, if you HAVE an escape route, you MUST take it.. In stand your ground states, you DON'T have to escape even though you could.. Instead, you can STAND your ground and shoot somebody. Personally, I don't call that self defense.. I call it murder..

In terms of personal defense/offense, lemme relate a story. I've got a big mouth.. Sometimes that's not so good.. So, one day I find myself at the end of a driveway with NO escape possible.. I can't remember what I yelled at this guy who was walking by, but he didn't like it, and walked right up to my open car window.. Now, nothing happened, but it scared the shit out of me.. Am I gonna SHUT my mouth from now on?? You gotta be kidding..

excon

Side: Wingnuts
0 points

I dunno what the dictionary says about defense, but in any case, what matters is the legal definition..

I don't entirely agree, brother. The legal definition of anything changes dependent upon which country you happen to be standing in. The job of the law is not to decide what the meaning of words is. I understand entirely the point you are trying to make, so please don't get me wrong. It is just that my personal intention in opening this thread is to expose the way language itself is being abused in order to take the edge off how crazy some of these gun nut arguments are.

In states WITHOUT stand your ground laws, self defense means that, when confronted, if you HAVE an escape route, you MUST take it.

I believe this makes good sense because escaping unequivocally is a defensive response to confrontation. In fact, it vexes me when American gun nuts wax lyrical about situations where the only method of escape is attacking the person who is confronting you. I would wager that in 99 percent of situations there is an escape route to be found. It isn't as if we're talking about being parachuted behind enemy lines here. Usually, the hidden heart of objection for the gun nuts is their own pride. They would sooner kill than take a dent to their ego by running away, and I believe the ultimate reason for this is because, with a gun, killing someone is often the easier option.

In stand your ground states, you DON'T have to escape even though you could.. Instead, you can STAND your ground and shoot somebody. Personally, I don't call that defense.. I call it murder..

I'm not sure I would go that far, but it certainly is a problem to start merging the lines between attack and defence. For example, in these type of states it is going to be much easier to legally justify using lethal force in situations where lethal force is not necessary. This type of law is deeply flawed in that it encourages certain types of cynical and duplicitous behaviour from the citizenry, such as provoking people you intend to shoot to create the confrontation which later becomes the basis of your defence.

In terms of personal defense/offense, lemme relate a story. I've got a big mouth.. Sometimes that's not so good.. So, one day I find myself at the end of a driveway with NO escape possible.. I can't remember what I yelled at this guy who was walking by, but he didn't like it, and walked right up to my open car window.. Now, nothing happened, but it scared the shit out of me.. Am I gonna SHUT my mouth from now on?? You gotta be kidding..

That's an interesting and pertinent anecdote, but let me ask you this: what if you had shot him and he only wanted to know the time of day? You see, this is the absolute backbone of the problem with relabelling offensive acts as defence. It is extremely difficult to accurately determine someone's intent with a snap judgement. It is extremely difficult to accurately determine intent even in a courtroom, so you can imagine how difficult it is in the type of situation you describe, where you only have seconds to make up your mind. Simply because a person might believe they are going to be threatened or attacked does not necessarily make it so. The "stand your ground" laws encourage citizens to leap to spurious conclusions which they are then permitted to solve with lethal force. They furthermore encourage citizens to exaggerate the scale of confrontations to later absolve themselves for using that lethal force. Remember this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman

Side: Hazlenuts
2 points

such as provoking people you intend to shoot to create the confrontation which later becomes the basis of your defence.

If someone comes in my house, I owe them nothing but a bullet. I didn't "provoke them" to break in and get their stupid ass blown into oblivion. They provoked me.

Side: Wingnuts
1 point

let me ask you this: what if you had shot him and he only wanted to know the time of day

Hello again, N:

The point isn't what I would have DONE.. It's what I COULD have done to keep myself safe. Having a guy scream at you through the window of your car when you can't escape and aren't armed, is terrifying.. It's much LESS terrifying KNOWING that I COULD defend myself..

Look.. I think it's time we round the guns up. But, not because gun owners are nuts.. It's because SOME of them are nuts, and that's reason enough..

excon

Side: Hazlenuts
1 point

Fine. You want to call it attack if I wave a gun at someone to chase them off, or even shoot them, if they're threatening me or my family? I sure as hell don't owe you an apology, but I can't stop you either.

I ask, what do you propose as an alternative?

Do you think there is always a way to talk it out? Do you think every situation can end without violence? Do you think you owe someone else a guarantee of physical safety if they choose to attack you? What is your actual plan to deal with someone who wants to steal from you, rape you, or murder you? Because there are people in this world who want to do that, and don't need a reason. Do you plan to run? Curl into a ball and hope the problem will solve itself? Give them what they want and hope they won't kill you anyway? Why, exactly, do you propose that the life of someone trying to attack you is more valuable than yours? Because situations happen every day where people have to defend themselves with force (or "attack their attacker", if I have to speak in a language that you understand). There is no option B. Option B is to be fucking killed.

From where I'm standing, you only have the hope that such a situation will turn out OK for you. Hope is not a plan. I have an actual plan, and it involves the expenditure of ammunition.

But hey, if you have a better idea than either kill or be killed, I'm all ears. If not, feel free to ban me, 'cause I'm full of questions you don't have realistic answers to.

Side: Wingnuts
5 points

No, it's more like "I might be able to beat that guy at chess but if he has a gun he'll kick the board over and then make me agree he won - or else shoot me."

Don't bring a queen to a gun fight.

Side: Hazlenuts

Only in America is there a population stupid enough to not understand the pretty basic difference between attack and defence.

So Europeans can't read versions of the dictionary that Europeans wrote? Interesting. No wonder the pilgrims ran away. They must have gotten tired of illiterate authoritarians redcoats.

Side: Hazlenuts
1 point

So Europeans can't read versions of the dictionary that Europeans wrote?

On the contrary, we can read the dictionary just fine thank you. That's exactly how we know that attack is an antonym and not a synonym of defence.

Side: Wingnuts
1 point

The best defense is a good . . . what?

The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am . . .

offended. ;)

The question comes down to whether one knows the intent and capability of one's opponent, and whether or not the opponent has determined that it is a zero sum game.

The chess analogy presupposes that the opponent is both intent on and capable of hurting/killing you and yours, and that escape/mitigation is not possible (due to the perceived intent of the opponent to hurt/kill you) making the situation zero-sum.

In that case, it is foolish to assume the desire to kill you is just a passing whim. The prudent person would behave as if at some point, whether now if I stand my ground, or later if I run, the opponent will continue attempts on my life until I am dead.

Checkmate/killing the opponent solves this problem.

On the other hand, if the opponent's intent and determination are unclear, or if it is clear that the opponent is incapable of doing harm, then there are other options that are not zero sum. In this case, the Chess Analogy is not apt.

HOWEVER,

We have far too many stupid people in our society. The average IQ is steadily declining. As much to the point, we have far too many people who refuse to respect the property of and safety of others. Shooting people who are intruding into private residences is a fair way to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are lines that are easy not to cross. One of them is burglary.

There is no reason for a resident to wait to find out if this is a burglar or a person with intent to rape and torture the residents.

As much to the point, there is no excuse for requiring people to leave their homes/property in order to protect the intruder from the residents' abilities to kill or maim the intruder.

There is no shortage of burglars and home invaders. We can afford for them to be shot and left to die.

Side: Hazlenuts
0 points

The best defense is a good . . . what?

Like I explained earlier, this exact adage is the beating heart of the American gun fallacy. It is a play on words which you have interpreted literally. It means that the best strategy when you are attacked is often to counter-attack rather than defend. It does not mean that defence is the same thing as attack. If I am playing chess and I am under threat, if I have the option to launch a stronger, more decisive counter-attack against my opponent then it is sometimes better to take it than to defend my own pieces.

The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am offended

It is not "narrow-minded" you backwards imbecile. Offence and defence are antonyms. They literally mean the opposite to each other. You say you are offended, but it is I who is offended by your inability to grasp basic common sense. You might as well claim that it is "narrow minded" to believe that black cannot be white and white cannot be black.

The question comes down to whether one knows the intent and capability of one's opponent, and whether or not the opponent has determined that it is a zero sum game.

I haven't posited a question you idiot. I've exposed the stupidity of your gun logic. Throwing a bunch of impressive-sounding words at the screen won't suddenly make your position logical. If both I and my opponent have guns pointed at each other (i.e. zero sum game) it does not preclude us from attacking one another.

Try to follow basic English. Offence and defence are antonyms. Offence and defence are not synonyms. Therefore, if you are doing one then you necessarily cannot be doing the other.

Side: Wingnuts
marcusmoon(255) Disputed Banned
1 point

N,

Regarding "The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am offended."

That was a joke based on multiple puns. I keep forgetting that most leftists are humorless, narrow-minded dogmatists, which is why you are such oppressive scolds.

Try reading it again; maybe you will get it.

Side: Hazlenuts