- 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 never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
ProLogos: What's your point?
Bohemian: Civil liberties don't end at need.
ProLogos: No, moron. What's your point in stating that? Looks like you're just rambling.
ProLogos: Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
ProLogos: That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
ProLogos: I never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
It's just noncombative, which makes your dispute nonsensical.
No, it doesn't but I tire of arguing semantics with you. In any case I'm not sure what you mean 'non-combative'. I posted, as we now both agree, relevant information in a gun control debate so your contention is what exactly?
But the implication of it was the explanation.
If all you are going to do is reiterate your claim, and ignore my questions and avoid the meat of my rebuttal this is conversation is not going to go anyway.
To see the implication is a simple step by step process. You want rhetoric effect.
I'm not sure what you think rhetoric effect is or what I meant by it, but it does not depend on whether or not you are personally persuaded. The 'Effect' was emphasis, not persuasion. I don't go into any debate expecting to persuade the opposing side. That's a fool's errand. Debate nearly always cements the opposition more firmly in their position, there are psychological reasons why this happens. Even if someone realizes their position is wrong mid-debate they will continue to argue as if it is correct.
You dont think so because you get off on the idea of being attacked.
I suppose 'moron' and 'dipstick' are terms of endearment?
That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. It's the perfect argument in a gun control debate
Bwhahahahahahahahaha! I suppose perhaps it might be a high-caliber argument for you, but it would not survive (and hasn't thus far) the most cursory critical examination. If Need were the critical factor to determine whether some consumer product ought to be highly restricted then we'd have to, by the extension of that logic, treat every non-necessity in an identical manner.
We'd have to ban, or highly restrict garden gnomes, puzzles & board games, grills, fish-tanks, comic books, swimming pools, movies, coffee mugs with snarky sayings on them, unicycles, television sets, collectible knick-knacks and doodads, video games, furniture, clothes for cats, mansions, luxury cars, tattoos, all beverages besides water, paintings, french doors, entertainment systems, theater, Roller coasters & water parks, and virtually all leisure activity and accessories/peripherals etc...
Of course we don't need any of these things, but need is entirely besides the point.
When people stop wanting Guns, the demand goes down , and less guns are being put into the world.
Because people only want things they need?
Again, you guesses wrong. I banned you from the other debate because the only thing you had to say was "Your argument is terrible."
I said a bit more than that, as did some of the other users you banned.
You were clearly condemning insipidity.
But then said something insipid.
For the apparent fact that you say so.
That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
If you do not grasp the relevance of Constitutional Rights in a debate about gun control, your incomprehension is self-imposed, and I can do nothing to remedy that. That being noted, I fail to see how this in anyway answers my question.
Now you get it, Dipstick
So let me see if I understand this correctly. You have a problem with "cussin", but calling your opponents morons and dipsticks unreciprocated, is just fine with you?
How did you reach that conclusion?
Because you said: "'I'm not persuaded' is implied. So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect."
To say that one is 'not persuaded' is the definition of personal incredulity. Then you went on to infer ("So it is an explanation...") from personal incredulity that an explanation was therefore made.
Because simple declarations of personal incredulity are not explanations. If someone claims that Western Silverback Gorillas Have a propensity towards tool use more similar to chimpanzees than to Eastern Silverback Gorillas, and someone else responds "I'm not persuaded" has that person made an explanation as to why the aforementioned statement is untrue?
No, Slowhumian, I was simply stating an exception.
I don't think you were but I won't dwell on it.
Then nobody knows what your point is, including you.
I think my point is pretty apparent; "You don't need guns" is a terrible argument in a gun control debate. Had this been your debate, I'm guessing you would have banned me already.
It was to point out your insipidity.
That may have very well been your intent, but the question was nevertheless still nonsensical.
Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
"I'm not persuaded" is implied.
So implied personal incredulity is tantamount to explaining why something is wrong?
So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect.
It's still not.
None of that is true here
Apparently it is, or you'd not have spent the effort you have to remonstrate over my choice of words.
except maybe your admittance to vulgarity.
Do you believe that I have cause to deny vulgarity? Vulgarity is no substitute for wit but it is a fantastic addition to it. Any who have seen and read my posts will are aware that I have no shortage in my lexicon, and yet I still occasionally find good use of words the prudish are too reticent to use.
So your point here is to argue that you have rights?
Er.. no, it was more a rejection of your advice that I refrain from "cussin".
Its not my conclusion...its exactly what you said in response to my question.
Your question was nonsensical.
It was a counter example. A sound argument will not equally support false conclusions to true ones. We know that the user nobodyknows is not your god, ergo by using an equivalent argument to come to a known false conclusion he has effectively demonstrated the unsoundness of the argument you just put forth (e.g., "what is your evidence that there is no evidence" ...).
No, moron. What's your point in stating that?
You said "You don't need all those guns", I was pointing out that need is irrelevant when it comes to constitutional rights. I don't think I can elucidate my position any more clearly than that.
Good for you! But I just explained why it has no rhetoric effect.
You said it makes me look mad, which is not the same as saying it has no rhetoric effort, nor is telling someone that something has no rhetoric effect equivalent to explaining why it has no rhetoric effect.
And since rhetoric effect is what you're aiming for, then don't be cussin.
Saying that something is "fucking insipid" adds flavorful emphasis in a way that "very insipid" will never achieve, and I use it mostly to that effect. When used selectively can be a useful rhetorical tool, though can lose its distinctiveness when overused (much like fully capitalized words, I might add). Like it or not I reserve the right to swear, and anyone whose sensibilities cannot bear the sight of adult language I would advise to close their eyes.
Insipid means " Civil liberties don't end at need". Gotcha.
I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion based upon what I have said.
What's your point?
Civil liberties don't end at need.
Don't be cussin like a sailor now, cuz it makes you look mad.
I reserve the right to swear for rhetoric effect.
Also, what does insipid mean if "but I have a right to nevertheless.", isn't insipid?
It means precisely what I've already stated. Civil liberties don't end at need.
Unless I lose my sight or become shaky, the same goes here, one or two would be enough.
Unless you become shaky? Like under the psychological distress that comes with being in a real life or death situation? Is that what you are referring to? The perfect situation in which to be stingy about ammo. Perhaps the sensible legislative response would be to limit the legal round capacity of firearms for every citizen based upon what AlofRI presumes that he personally would be able to confidently deter a single home invader under ideal conditions. If a study by the FBI is to be believed, 80% of shots fired by law enforcement officers (nationally) miss their target, and in NYC specifically that figure is closer to 85%. Most of these gunfights happen within 20 feet of the assailant. If this situation should ever arise with a home invader, you better hope that your aim is better than the average Law Enforcement Officers (who conducts marksmanship training on a regular basis), most of whom have service pistols with 13 or 15 round capacities. And if there is more than one home invader all bets are off. Far be it for me or anyone else to question the alleged unreasonableness of owning firearms with more than a 7 round capacity.
I've hunted all my life, and NEVER shot more than two rounds at a time. What do conservatives do when THEY hunt .... spray the bushes!??
I believe he already responded to this:
"If an intruder broke into my house, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS! Guns are not just for hunting!"
So at least you admit you are irritated. That's good
If your goal is to be irritating, then I have great news.
because maybe you will wake up and see the danger you are in and get saved from Hell before it's too late
You seem to confuse irritation for persuasion.
at least I don't see you cussing
When it comes to debate I find that cooler heads prevail.
but it still seems like you are bitter and grumpy
You confuse my irritation at you specifically as a general attitude about life. On the contrary, I am quite content with my station in life. I have done quite well for myself. I've had the distinct opportunity to learn from those smarter than myself, to help those less fortunate than myself. I've crossed oceans and continents, run half marathons, and hiked at least one mountain. Not bad for a poor boy raised by a widowed mother. I can sit in my reclining chair, feet on my coffee table, and read my books about history. That is bliss.
What is not blissful is listening to some pigheaded old man cocksure of his own rightness, launching torrents of indignities and vitriol at any unfortunate enough to cross his path that do not share his narrow dogmatic views. You do more to slander Christianity than anyone else here could ever hope to do. I come to createdebate because I see debate as a competition of wits and intellect, and as a competitive person I enjoy it, but there is no sport in "debating" with you because you don't debate. It's like playing chess with someone who doesn't understand the rules, and just knocks the pieces about.
I don't much read your stuff anymore
And yet you continue to reply. Sometimes multiple times. Sometimes to posts that are several days old.
You don't want evidence
If I don't want evidence then why am I asking for it and why are you refusing to provide it?
you want to believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell
As much as you appear to want me to agonize over my rejection of Christianity, I don't, no more than you agonize over your rejection of Hinduism.
As Jace so aptly put "For not being your problem, you seem much more concerned about it than I am."
Hell wasn't the point of my contention, so you can insist all you like, but I'm going to need you to present evidence for your claim, which you said was so easy to find. Your inability to present it, tells a very different story.