CreateDebate


Amarel's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Amarel's arguments, looking across every debate.
Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

The chief purpose of a firearm is to kill. No doubt. That alone isn't an argument one way or the other

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

What do you recommend? Mandatory ownership? Maybe a program to help poor people purchase one?

1 point

You're not the one who claimed you shit the guy who got in your face while you were in a wheelchair, are you?

The home invasion would be a burglary, not a robbery

1 point

My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun. Which, by the way is mere correlation. You may find a person is 5 times more likely to commit suicide if they use vinegar as a cleaner in their home. Mere correlation.

I can be dangerous on occasion. I took up skydiving this year.

1 point

Your 300% is a fake statistic. It's actually higher. .

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

You forgot their overzealous educators bringing sexual deviance into the classroom

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

Yeah, I just wanted to take something innocuous from all of that and pretend it's outrageous

1 point

Most combat is all done for now. .

1 point

Webster isn't exactly a political publication. I guess unless you're a liberal. Liberals like to make up new, ridiculous definitions for things. Hey, what is a woman?

1 point

Because of the socially constructed nature of race, a person can board a plane in the US as a black person, and exit the plane in Brazil as a white person. They have a different notion of race there. A black person can be white.

It's hilarious that you think a man can be a woman but a black man can't be white. Race is for more socially constructed than gender expression. Pigment is far less consequential than sex organs and the resulting physical affects of them.

1 point

Are you fucking serious!? Red dot? !

0 points

A 300 percent increase of a miniscule number is still a miniscule number

1 point

Sure there is a relationship. Drugs have a huge black market, which always comes with violence. If you look at the CDC data, you'll see that drug poisoning kills twice the people guns do. You'll also see that states with the highest gun deaths do not neatly overlap with states having the highest drug deaths.

https://wisqars.cdc.gov/data/explore-data/home

1 point

Children should be given matches and guns and showed how to use them. Children are allowed to hunt alone in all 50 states.

1 point

You're talking about whores and matches, but you think I'm off topic?

Make a list of the things you have sufficient difficulty with.

(This will keep him off my back for days)

1 point

When my daughter is old enough, while still a child, I will certainly cause her to use a gun.

1 point

It's good that we recognized the problem with drugs. We banned them. No more conversation needed, right? Moving on to lesser problems...

0 points

There's no basis for the claim that illegal gun use is greater than illegal drug use. Perhaps gun use in general is greater than illegal drug use, but legal gun use isn't the issue.

I don't think the father of the dead college kid is reassured by the notion that their kid's death was peaceful.

1 point

You think we can ban guns but not tobacco? Haha ok. .

1 point

I asked for an age, not a stage.

Oh I see, you can't be a supreme person because you weren't even allowed to handle matches until you were legal to vote.

1 point

We aren't trying to compare like with like. I am demonstrating that all the talk about guns is under the pretext of minimizing or reducing impact. If that wasn't a false pretense, we would hear more about those things that have a greater impact, as drugs do by a long shot.

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

Lol all this attention because I said racial supremacists are the least supreme examples of their race, and you (for some reason) took it personally.

Norwich thought I was limping him with racial supremacists for no other reason than he is the least supreme kind of person.

1 point

Below what age is a person a child. ?

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

I played with matches quite a bit too. .

1 point

Of all the people killed in 2020, 33% we're from drugs. 16.2% we're from guns. 33% is a higher death rate than 16.2%. Since the measured population is people killed, that's twice as many people.

The vast majority of gun owners are never even shot. There are more gun owners than drug users. Drugs kill at a higher rate than guns.

1 point

Gun ownership is not against the law. Gun owners aren't criminals. Your gun ban is not in effect. It never will be.

1 point

You know Egypt is in Africa, right? .

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

An uncommon level of self awareness by you. Good to see. .

1 point

Asian countries have long been primitive backwaters except for where they adopted healthy economic institutions, or stole from those who had healthy economic institutions. Their backwater position had nothing to do with their race. That's why they thrive in the west under healthy institutions.

You're looking at the outcome and presuming a racial cause. That's because skin tone is all you have in common with the high quality white people you champion.

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

Back on your firstly. I have the data for the US. You cannot reasonably move to world statistics as a counter unless you have the data.

I'm using the CDC, what are you using?

0 points

That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers. When I pointed that out, you said they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. That's a circular argument justifying the proposed law. Those people ARE law abiding citizens. You can't point to future criminalization as a defense for the proposed law.

This is very obvious. Get off this fallacy so we can proceed.

1 point

This is another lamentably false statement. 32 million people regularly use drugs in the United States and there were 100,000 OD deaths last year. Your apparent belief that 32 million people intentionally shot someone with the intent of killing them last year is preposterous and stupid. There are a lot more people taking drugs than shooting people with guns and this should be perfectly obvious to anybody with even half a functional brain cell.

If drugs are more lethal than guns, which seems to be -- bizarrely -- what you are implying, then why is the military armed with guns and not drugs?

You are equating lethal shooters with non lethal drug users. That's fallacious. You should be equating drug users with gun users (owners) to make a comparison. Many more people own guns than use lethal drugs. The vast vast majority of gun owners are perfectly safe, even while actively shooting their guns.

Drugs kill twice as many people as guns do. The military doesn't employ drugs because drugs accidentally kill the user at an astronomical rate. Far more than what guns kill on purpose.

1 point

Firstly, You're not suggesting a world wide ban on guns are you? That's gonna take a little more conquering. Yes I am talking about the issues as they relate to America, and what might be done. There is literally nothing to be done about global gun and drug deaths.

Secondly, if something people do for fun kills them at twice the rate of tools meant to kill, that makes my case even greater. We talk about guns because of politics, not because of impact. Which leads to the thirdly.

Thirdly, this is not tu quoque (you're terrible at identifying logical fallacies haha). It is about what we discuss and why. It's driven by political narrative, not impact.

0 points

Did you ever consider it might be because drug users take drugs of their own free will, whereas gunshot victims don't usually volunteer to get sprayed with bullets?

Lol you're incorrect. The majority of gun deaths are from suicide. Even including suicide, drug deaths are double gun deaths. And including suicide is what disingenuous talking heads always do when discussing gun violence.

1 point

"Who the fuck is this Amarel suggesting informative literature on economics? Downvote this ass!"

1 point

Yeah. He probably has carcasses in a woodshop or something.

1 point

You're future criminalizing law abiding citizens as cause for creating the law that would criminalize them. That's circular reasoning and it's not what I did.

I wasn't even discussing gun bans when I suggested that penalizing criminals and not law abiding citizens is complex in this context. That post was in keeping with your statement that individuals should be held accountable for their own actions, not those of others. You abandoned that notion as soon as it failed to meet your wants.

Of course 2A can be amended, through the amendment process. There is 0 political will for such. The result is that a gun ban is illegal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That's logically linear and factual.

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

Lol. My prediction is that I will absolutely rub your nose in this post.

My other prediction is that, post election, the left will distance from Biden as a 2024 candidate. Biden will assist in this effort

0 points

The economic power of America and Europe derives from it's institutions. This is not a racial issue. "Why Nations Fail" lays it out nicely.

2 points

That looks like it took some time, did you do it yourself, or did you get your retarded cousin to type it up because he has more superior pigmentation?

1 point

No I ate them. Wtf? .

1 point

You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.

That's not what I did, but if I had it wouldn't be an example of circular reasoning. I was referring to getting guns out of the hands of criminals while leaving innocent people alone. Declaring those people future criminals to justify the law that will criminalize them actually is circular reasoning.

A gun ban is illegal. It's against the supreme law of the land. Banning guns is therefore already criminal.

You can't characterize good laws as flawed to justify flawed laws. It's not circular reasoning, but it is relying on a false premise.

You said individuals should be held responsible for their actions. Now you're suggesting criminalizing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Your internal contradictions need to be addressed.

1 point

I worded the title after a separate debate by the same name was closed.

We do need to hold individuals responsible, individually. That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners.

As a child, I used a gun often.

1 point

Is it a crime to cause children to use a gun ?

1 point

I provided a definition from a reputable source. You provided your opinion about a word. An opinion that doesn't matter.

1 point

Oh I understand con. I've been a cop for 7 years. This raid was conducted in APRIL. It's October. They didn't find anything prosecutable. It happens. But very quickly, he and his story vanish. Now it's suspect.

1 point

Um, obviously. .

1 point

I referenced a definition provided by a reputable source. Your opinion is that the definition is wrong. ScienceRules seems to agree. But that's an opinion that doesn't matter.


2 of 201 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]