CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
8
No, he murdered 2 people. Why was he armed?
Debate Score:15
Arguments:17
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No, he murdered 2 people. (7)
 
 Why was he armed? (8)

Debate Creator

Ahoghill(1345) pic



Should Rittenhouse have been acquitted?

Rittenhouse killed two white people who were protesting against racism.
He was videoed along with some other self-appointed vigilantes policing the demonstration which had generally been peaceful.
This begs the question, why were armed men allowed to strut around in public with assault type rifles unchallenged by the legitimate forces of law and order?
Does their treatment appear to contrast with how other ethnic groups, say blacks, would probably have been dealt with in similar circumstances? 

No, he murdered 2 people.

Side Score: 7
VS.

Why was he armed?

Side Score: 8
1 point

If this haughty fool had not been allowed to swank around arrogantly flaunting his assault rifle in a menacing fashion he would not have been chased by alarmed demonstrators and the two victims whom he murdered would still be alive.

He went looking for trouble and he found it.

He will bear the stigma of being a domestic terrorist, and have to live with his conscience, if he has any, for the rest of his life.

Side: No, he murdered 2 people.
DisputedByMe(14) Disputed
1 point

He went looking for trouble and he found it.

He went to help heal people and put out fires that were started by rioters. Kyle never went looking for trouble, but instead trouble found Kyle.

He will bear the stigma of being a domestic terrorist

The only domestic terrorists in Kenosha, Wisconsin were the rioters burning down buildings. It's obvious how much your own feelings have blinded you.

swank around arrogantly flaunting his assault rifle in a menacing fashion

Yeah, you definitely did not watch the trial... Try using facts next time...

Side: Why was he armed?

Should Rittenhouse have been acquitted?

Yes. If you don't want to get shot, don't follow a kid with a gun around like a stalker and then try to beat and stomp him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Side: No, he murdered 2 people.
MantisBreath(24) Disputed
1 point

The people who got shot should have used brazilian ninjutsu to disarm him. I'm not saying I'm for or against his acquittal, just that those guys clearly didn't have many ninjutsu skills.

Side: Why was he armed?
Ahoghill(1345) Disputed
1 point

Well, it's always good to be able to defend oneself and the Brazilian ninjutsu sounds a very effective method of doing so.

However, in my experience there are two types of people in the world of brawling.

1) Those people with guns and 2) those people without guns.

No manner of martial arts will enable one to stop or avoid a bullet.

Side: No, he murdered 2 people.
Ahoghill(1345) Clarified
1 point

Some good points there.

But then why did Rittenhouse go to an emotionally charged protest with an assault type rifle and assume a high-profile/menacing presence?

If I may borrow your own terminology and ask the question;-

If you don't want to get beaten and stomped then don't aggressively intrude on a protest of impassioned demonstrators carrying a lethal weapon.

Some say that he went there looking for trouble.

I say he went there to cause trouble.

He was successful at baiting some of the demonstrating mob who attacked him, two of whom paid the ultimate price for not thinking through the probable consequences of their gung-ho bravado.

Side: No, he murdered 2 people.
DisputedByMe(14) Disputed
1 point

But then why did Rittenhouse go to an emotionally charged protest with an assault type rifle and assume a high-profile/menacing presence?

Kyle Rittenhouse went to the riots to help heal people. He brought a rifle because of the need to defend himself against the rioters who also had firearms and were burning down buildings.

If you don't want to get beaten and stomped then don't aggressively intrude on a protest of impassioned demonstrators carrying a lethal weapon.

"protest of impassioned demonstrators". Translation: "Angry mobs burning down buildings and trying to kill people". Also, Kyle had just as much right to carry his firearm as everyone else out there who had lethal weapons.

Some say that he went there looking for trouble. I say he went there to cause trouble. He was successful at baiting some of the demonstrating mob who attacked him, two of whom paid the ultimate price for not thinking through the probable consequences of their gung-ho bravado.

How can you be so ignorant that you completely miss the point AND the evidence here? Kyle was NOT looking for trouble, he was looking for love and healing. He was victimized by the crowd for simply being there, bringing a message of peace, understanding and love. Something tells me you did not watch the trial.

Side: Why was he armed?
1 point

He is a gun-nut who is apparently fascinated with firearms.

Inherently cowardly people with low self-esteem and a lack of faith in their self-defence capabilities usually turn to guns or knives to boost their confidence.

I would say that this piece of filth's troubles are only just beginning.

Side: Why was he armed?
SexyJesus(153) Disputed
1 point

Side: No, he murdered 2 people.
Ahoghill(1345) Disputed
1 point

You haven't the savvy to understand that this poor little innocent child shouldn't have intruded aggressively into a demonstration of inflamed and potentially violent protesters brandishing an assault type rifle.

Only someone such as you with MAD DOGS SHIT FOR BRAINS would have incensed a horde of impassioned protesters without being aware of the inevitable outcome.

The fool didn't react to trouble, he reacted to the trouble which he wilfully and mischievously caused and then on grounds of self-defence found it necessary to take the lives of two people who would otherwise be alive if he HAD STAYED AT HOME WITH HIS MOMMY LIKE ALL GOOD ''LITTLE CHILDREN''.

If some crackpot approaches a group of legitimate demonstrators with a lethal firearm that group would have reasonably assumed that they were about to be mown down by an armed maniac.

Under such circumstances the demonstrators would have been forced to defend themselves and as ATTACK IS THE BEST FORM OF DEFENCE some of the more gung-ho protesters tried to neutralize the ARMED ASSAILANT.

You display your own immaturity by challenging my ability to face-down a volatile crowd of angry demonstrators with my bare hands.

Dear fool, I wouldn't have been anywhere near such a demonstration and would have left the crowd-control procedures to the legitimate law enforcement agencies.

Through his own well thought out, premeditated actions this self-appointed vigilante graphically illustrated just how much of a snivelling dirty little coward he really is when, separated from his rifle, he broke down sobbing like a baby and had to be comforted by his lawyer.

As his lawyer comforted him with gentle little pats on his back, was he heard saying, ''there there now, my poor little innocent trouble-making murderer, don't cry?

Side: Why was he armed?
1 point

This sobbing fool didn't seem so tough in court without the backup of his assault rifle.

Side: Why was he armed?
DisputedByMe(14) Disputed
1 point

Insults do not count as arguments, Ahoghill...

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

Side: Why was he armed?

Yes, Kyle Rittenhouse should have been acquitted. He went to the riots in the first place to help people who were hurt from either being attacked/getting caught in the crossfire of rioters. Kyle kept an AR-15 with him for the obvious reason of protection. The man who initially threatened him did so either for no reason or because Kyle was trying to heal people. Kyle kept healing people and also began to help others put out fires that had been set on buildings and cars. He threatened Kyle a second time and another man also threatened him when Kyle put a fire out that they had set on a car in the CareSource 2 lot. Finally, they decided they wanted to chase Kyle down and kill him. Kyle eventually had nowhere to run since the two people chasing him were directly in front of him and a crowd of over 100 people were behind him. He pulled out his gun but did not shoot until the killer was literally almost on top of him and had his hand on the barrel of Kyle's gun. At this point, the killer pulled out his own gun to shoot Kyle. Kyle shot first and killed the men trying to kill him. This is an obvious act of self-defense. The two men threatened lethal force, and Kyle responded with lethal force. That's how self-defense works. Plain and simple.

Side: Why was he armed?