CreateDebate


Debate Info

32
40
Yes No
Debate Score:72
Arguments:122
Total Votes:78
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (30)
 
 No (39)

Debate Creator

HornedOne(20) pic



If a group begins attacking your car in traffic, do you run over them?

Yes

Side Score: 32
VS.

No

Side Score: 40
1 point

Insofar that attack is the best form of defense mow the crazy, life threatening bastards down and be damned.

Side: Yes
Jace(4981) Disputed
1 point

Diffusion is usually a better form of defense, as it avoids the risks of altercation. And in what way are they life threatening? They're 'attacking' inanimate material. Have fun with the aggravated assault charges and civil damages suits, by the way.

Side: No
Dermot(5715) Clarified
1 point

And in what way are they life threatening? They're 'attacking' inanimate material.

If a guy ‘Attacks’ your car in traffic let’s say with a sledgehammer would you be justified in attempting to flee by running them over ?

It is indeed an inanimate object but it contains you in its interior , your clothes contain you using your reasoning one could say they were ‘attacking ‘ your clothes as in an inanimate object that contained you

Side: Yes
1 point

There are enough people who have been pulled out of their cars and beaten to death that you should stomp the gas, stomp the brake, and repeat until people get the fuck out of the way of your escape. If people get caught under your tires, well, that's why you shouldn't attack people in their cars with an angry mob. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Side: Yes
Jace(4981) Disputed
1 point

Is the incidence of people being dragged from their cars and murdered really so high as to treat it interchangeably with people damaging your car? I'm dubious.

As at least one other person has pointed out, you're also liable to injure and/or kill someone who was not participating in the 'attack' on your car. Ethics aside, good luck with that court trial; guess it's your respective 'prize'.

Side: No

I reserve the right to free myself from danger by any means necessary.

Side: Yes
1 point

I reserve the right to free myself from danger by any means necessary.

Except getting an education.

Side: No
2 points

I gots a furst rait edgamacation- howe dar u.

--------------------------------------------------

Side: Yes
Jace(4981) Clarified
1 point

Do you think that your car being vandalized necessarily equates to you being in danger?

Side: Yes
HighFalutin(3166) Clarified
1 point

Yes.

That was easy. Give me something difficult.

------------------------------------------------

Side: Yes
1 point

I'd say it depends. If they knowingly came into the road, then I'd say it is justified to run over them. If they didn't know, or were drunk, then perhaps not.

Side: Yes
1 point

Of course not. There's probably a bunch of people there who don't even know they are in your path. Defense should only be sought against actual threats. Direct your firearm toward them.

Side: No
1 point

Defense should only be sought against actual threats. Direct your firearm toward them.

Please stop abusing language mate. Shooting someone is a form of attack, not defence. Even if you are trying to end a threat against yourself, it doesn't magically make attacking somebody defence. The defence is a by-product of you attacking them.

Side: Yes
Jace(4981) Disputed
1 point

What exactly do you think defense is? If you can't shoot someone because it's an attack, then it stands to reason you can't punch them or anything else. Because that would be an attack. Does your concept of self defense extend only so far as taking the blows as best you can and hoping for the best? That's not self defense. It's pacifism, and the forfeiture of self defense.

Side: No
1 point

Wrong. You always have a right to self-defense and sometimes the best defense is an offense against a threat.

Side: No
Jace(4981) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, you think that property damage constitutes a threat to a person? And that this further justifies threatening a person with lethal force and/or using potentially lethal force against a person?

Side: Yes
Amarel(5136) Clarified
2 points

No, property damage does not inherently constitute a threat to person. But when you are secure, inside the property being attacked, it is often reasonable to conclude that you are the ultimate goal of said attack. Of course this requires more context, and with specific information my specific answer would adjust.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5136) Clarified
2 points

Also, I kinda just like getting a rise out of the folks here who hate that I carry a gun.

Side: Yes
Pickleface(22) Disputed
1 point

To clarify, you think that property damage constitutes a threat to a person? And that this further justifies threatening a person with lethal force and/or using potentially lethal force against a person?

What if the people beating on the car are shouting, "I'm gonna kill you!" and "kill that Nazi pig!" and they have you surrounded with hundreds of people who refuse to get out of your vehicle's path?

Side: Yes
1 point

If a group begins attacking your car in traffic, do you run over them?

Hello Horned:

Uhh, no.. You can get a new car, but they can't get a new life.

Of course, if you're armed, you can step out of your car and confront them. If any of them advance on you, you can shoot the motherfucker..

excon

Side: No
Jace(4981) Clarified
1 point

If their lives are more valuable than your car, then why take the significant risk of escalating the situation into one where you are using lethal force just to protect the car?

Side: Yes
Mint_tea(4307) Clarified
2 points

Jace if someone steps out with a gun and they continue to advance then it's not the car they are interested in.

Side: Yes
excon(14555) Disputed
1 point

why take the significant risk of escalating the situation

Hello Jace:

Let's assume that you just wanna kill some motherfucking, left wing, communist, hippie, rioter.. In the scenario I outlined above, stand your ground laws would LET you.

excon

Side: Yes
TheDevil Disputed
0 points

Going to dispute you there. It's not your car at stake, it is your life. They attack you in your car, your car is your best method of escape. They die? They shouldn't have attacked you. The last, last thing you should do is get out of the vehicle, gun or not. A vehicle isn't perfect protection, or even good protection, to hold out for long against an angry mob. If they have the means to break your window they most certainly have the means to drag you out and beat you to death. The best option is to get the fuck away from that situation as fast as you can.

Side: Yes
Jace(4981) Disputed
1 point

Gonna dispute you there. Them 'attacking' your car is not them attacking you. That they could smash your window and drag you out doesn't mean that they intend to or will. Big leap.

Side: No
1 point

Diffuse if possible. Document it either way. Photos of the people. Followup it up in claims court. Even if I can't ID them or somehow lose the suit, it's still less of a loss and bother than having to deal with the fallout of driving my car through a bunch of people. I need a nice looking car a lot less than I need to not have aggravated assault or involuntary manslaughter charges fucking up my life forever.

Side: No
Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

Is there a point of escalation where escape takes precedence over charges?

Also, good call on documentation. Especially if it escalates.

Side: Yes
Jace(4981) Clarified
1 point

Yeah. It's a pretty high bar, though. Almost entirely on account of how little I like my personal odds with a court or in prison. I expect both to be quite hostile on account of who I am, so I'd have to be pretty damned sure that there wasn't an alternative. And, I expect I'd draw directly on my attackers before I'd try escaping by driving through a bunch of other people.

Side: Yes