CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
20
Absolutely true Doubtful
Debate Score:45
Arguments:61
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Absolutely true (17)
 
 Doubtful (18)

Debate Creator

Amritangshu(892) pic



Using Truck instead of Gun proves the problem is not the weapon but the "Ideology"

I have said this on twitter do u agree ? I say it affirmative purely because there's no excuse in saying so, since that's the case-Muslims have problems with Christians in West, Hindus and Buddhists in East and Jews in Middle-East- they have to be eradicated that's what I think affirmatively

Absolutely true

Side Score: 25
VS.

Doubtful

Side Score: 20
2 points

I agree, to an extent. It is the cause of the problem, but all the same, sometimes you have to address the symptoms of a problem (like the abuse of access to certain weapons) to mitigate the extent of damage.

Side: Absolutely true
FromWithin(8240) Disputed
1 point

I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns and start admitting that they never worry of addressing the symptoms of other problems (like the abuse of access to automobiles) to mitigate the extent of damage, as you were trying to say about guns. Why do we only hear about guns? Cars kill just as many or more from drunk driving, accidents, etc.

If it's the weapon and not the person choosing to drink and drive, you must go after the car! According to fools on the Left, it is not the killer, or the terrorist, IT IS THE GUN that is the problem.

More people are killed with hammers then assault rifles! Did you know this? Do you or those on the Left care? No, you care about one thing and one thing alone.... banning guns as has Europe.

You will lie how you don't want to ban all guns but rather just banning those evil assault rifles. Have you ever listened to the definition of assualt rifles from the Left?

New York State's "Safe Act" tried to ban all hunting rifles that held more than seven rounds!

Democrat's ultimate goal is to take our guns one step at a time. They will never admit it until they can make it happen in the courts. They are already denying people the right to carry a conceiled weapon for protection. It matters not that Hillary and the Hollywood eletes have body gaurds carryng conceiled weapons for their protection.

This is why Hillary's supreme court appointees would be devestating to our freedoms. We can not allow these extremist Democrats to appoint any more activist Justices such as Ruth Beta Ginsburg who is actually jumping into politics and attacking Trump!

Yeh, she really cares about the intent of our constituton.

Side: Doubtful
Atrag(5556) Disputed
1 point

I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns

Please wait quietly...?

Side: Absolutely true

Any religion which can spawn so much death, suffering and misery must be inherently evil. Rudyard Kipling got it right when he coined the phrase, East is East and West is West and ne'er the t'wain shall meet. Everyone, including the dogs in the street know this, but this glaring and self evident truth seems to have gone over the heads of our woefully stupid politicians. In the meantime we, our children and grandchildren will have to pay the terrible price for the shortsightedness of our low life politicians, just as the French population are paying the price for the utter folly of past liberal politicians.

Side: Absolutely true
2 points

After the Orlando shooting, people on the left used the incident as a device to blame the Right for going for lesser gun restrictions, now the dynamics have changed in Nice-I even heard some on the left saying the truck was "WHITE", now tell me what is that guy implying #WhitePrivilege ? We really need to address the fact that many of the Muslim clerics and Imams preach the religion in a divisive and malevolent way often highlighting more on barbarity than peace-that's the reason France had 3 terror attacks in 18 months- rather than being the #MuslimApologeticLeftWing, US should go and build the #wall

Side: Absolutely true

I think it's incontrovertible proof as well as all the other incidences, but somehow, the left just can't acknowledge reality. They seem to think doing so will hurt the terrorists itty bitty feelings and the last thing they want is a terrorist with a complex. Go figure.

Side: Absolutely true
1 point

Out of curiosity, have you ever once in your life tried to actually think about the root cause of terrorism?

Now remember, I mean terrorism, not a specific type of terrorism, not terrorism done by a specific religious or ethnic group, but terrorism as a whole, from a modern and historical perspective.

Side: Doubtful
HighFalutin(3268) Clarified
1 point

Re:"Out of curiosity, have you ever once in your life tried to actually think about the root cause of terrorism?"

Yes, the root cause is lack of employment as propounded the the Obama admin:

Jobs for Jihadis -

State Department under fire for saying finding 'jobs' for jihadis - not 'killing them' - is the only way to defeat ISIS, as White House avoids saying latest beheading victims were Christian

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957350/State-Department-says-win-war-against-ISIS-killing-Obama-administration-avoids-mention-Christian-beheading-victims-religion-launches-new-hashtag-diplomacy- effort.html

PS - Have you hired a Jihadi today? LOL. This is shear liberal lunacy!

Side: Absolutely true

I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns and start admitting that they never worry about addressing the symptoms of other problems (like the abuse of access to automobiles) to mitigate the extent of damage. Why do we only hear about guns? Cars kill just as many or more from drunk driving, accidents, etc.

If it's the weapon and not the person choosing to drink and drive, you must go after the car! According to fools on the Left, it is not the killer, or the terrorist, IT IS THE GUN that is the problem.

More people are killed with hammers then assault rifles! Did you know this? Do those on the Left care? No, you care about one thing and one thing alone.... banning guns as has Europe.

You will lie how you don't want to ban all guns but rather just banning those evil assault rifles. Have you ever listened to the definition of assualt rifles from the Left?

New York State's "Safe Act" tried to ban all hunting rifles that held more than seven rounds!

Democrat's ultimate goal is to take our guns one step at a time. They will never admit it until they can make it happen in the courts. They are already denying people the right to carry a conceiled weapon for protection. It matters not that Hillary and the Hollywood eletes have body gaurds carryng conceiled weapons for their protection.

This is why Hillary's supreme court appointees would be devestating to our freedoms. We can not allow these extremist Democrats to appoint any more activist Justices such as Ruth Beta Ginsburg who is actually jumping into politics and attacking Trump!

Yeh, she really cares about the intent of our constituton.

Side: Absolutely true
AveSatanas(4437) Disputed
2 points

I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns and start admitting that they never worry about addressing the symptoms of other problems (like the abuse of access to automobiles) to mitigate the extent of damage. Why do we only hear about guns? Cars kill just as many or more from drunk driving, accidents, etc.

Because mass shootings make national news and car accidents make local news, maybe.

Also, the keyword is car ACCIDENTS. These are not intentional events. Someone who shouldnt have a gun getting access to one and shooting a bunch of people is not an accident its an intentional crime.

Also, we do address drunk driving and car crashes. Hence why vehicles have crash test regulations that must be met to be street legal. Hence why a blood alcohol level of .08 is a crime and gets you arrested.

If it's the weapon and not the person choosing to drink and drive, you must go after the car!

Nobody is saying its the weapon. Nobody. I have literally never heard even one person blame the gun for shooting someone. Obviously its the person who shot the gun that is at fault.

What we blame is gun LAWS that are far too LAX. What we blame is poor public policy and poor regulation of guns that allow them all too often to be accessed by children, mentally unstable people, and anyone else who shouldnt own one.

According to fools on the Left, it is not the killer, or the terrorist, IT IS THE GUN that is the problem.

No. According to YOU that is what the left says. What the left ACTUALLY says is that it is the gun LAWS that are a problem. Hence why we try to pass new ones.

More people are killed with hammers then assault rifles! Did you know this? Do those on the Left care? No, you care about one thing and one thing alone.... banning guns as has Europe.

And? Hammers are not indended to be used as weapons. They are intended to be used as tools. Guns however ARE intended to kill their target. In that case of handguns and assault weapons those targets are PEOPLE.

Its obvious that guns need to be regulated accordingly and hammers fucking dont. You cant mow down a room full of people with a hammer.

You will lie how you don't want to ban all guns but rather just banning those evil assault rifles.

As you lie about how we do wanna ban all guns.

Please, if democrats want to ban all guns then find me one piece of legislation that has been proposed in the past 3 years that would effectively ban guns. Please cite the democratic party platform position on gun legislation and show me where they say they want to ban guns. I'll gladly wait.

Because to this very day the only democrat i have heard even suggest banning guns is Dianne Feinstein who thinks that is a good idea. And she recently proposed legislation to the senate and not even that legislation says to ban guns! She proposed banning assault style weapons, high capacity mags, and allow the attourney general to have some power over gun regulation. That was it. And many democrats criticized it for being far too extreme.

The idea that even the minority of democrats want to ban guns is fucking absurd let alone the idea that its some how the consensus of the entire party.

Have you ever listened to the definition of assualt rifles from the Left?

Have you ever actually listened to anything the left actually says or proposes? Or do you just listen to what republican sources SAY that the democrats said?

New York State's "Safe Act" tried to ban all hunting rifles that held more than seven rounds!

Okay, AND?? What the fuck does that have to do with the definition of assault rifles? And does this have anything to do with banning ALL guns? No. This is a simple regulation. The rifle makers are free to make a model rifle that has no more than 7 rounds and sell it.

Also id like to know why any hunter actually needs a rifle with more than 7 rounds. What the fuck do they need to kill, a rhinoceros? You dont need 7 rifle rounds for 99% of anything you would hunt. Also theres thing thing called reloading. They can have as much ammo as they want and just reload the clip.

Youre throwing a hissy fit over the most simple, petty, utterly pointless gun legislation.

Democrat's ultimate goal is to take our guns one step at a time.

You have never once actually supported this idea. And i have very clearly dismanteled it. No they dont wanna ban guns. The 2nd amendment clearly exists. Nobody has proposed any kind of policy youre claiming they support.

They will never admit it until they can make it happen in the courts. They are already denying people the right to carry a conceiled weapon for protection.

In some states. And in others you can have conceiled carry. Some democratic states ban it. Some democratic states (like Mass) allow it.

So now i ask you, if the democrats all want to ban guns and theyre all in consensus that this is their supreme ultimate goal, how come so many democratic states disagree with eachother on what gun reform to pass? How come mass allows conceiled carry if theyre banning it in other blue states? How does that line up in any way with your narrative that they want to ban guns? Doesnt look like mass is putting very much effort into that.

It matters not that Hillary and the Hollywood eletes have body gaurds carryng conceiled weapons for their protection.

This is why Hillary's supreme court appointees would be devestating to our freedoms. We can not allow these extremist Democrats to appoint any more activist Justices such as Ruth Beta Ginsburg who is actually jumping into politics and attacking Trump!

Shes a supreme court justice and shes just now jumping into politics? She IS politics. Shes been in it since before trump stuck his tiny hands in the door.

Yeh, she really cares about the intent of our constituton.

Oh but the republicans who support the patriot act which totally throws the 14th amendment out the window, theyre okay?

And the republicans who support guantanamo bay, and extrajudicial prison which clearly violates the 8th amendment, they totally care about our freedoms right?

Give me a fucking break

Side: Doubtful
FromWithin(8240) Disputed
1 point

You just perfecty showed why it is a total waste of time debating people on the Left. THEY ARE TOTAL LIARS who will change their words when being shown their lies.

I just gave you an example of how Democrats DO ban our guns, such as in New York State, with the "Safe Act", when with one piece of gun control legislation, they tried to make all hunting rifles in our homes ILLEGAL by making it against the law to have a gun holding more than seven rounds.

If a home owner ever protected his family from an intruder with one of these illegal hunting rifles, he could go to jail when the cops saw the gun!

Every gun owner would have to get rid of his guns and buy the new political correct guns!

What was your pathetic response? You instantly changed your rhetoric. You said...

"This is a simple regulation. The rifle makers are free to make a model rifle that has no more than 7 rounds and sell it.

Also id like to know why any hunter actually needs a rifle with more than 7 rounds."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL, YOU TOTAL DECEPTIVE LIAR AND FOOL! AS ALWAYS!!!!! THIS IS WHY I BAN SOME FOOLS ON THIS SITE. THEY ARE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME TO DEBATE!

If an intruder broke into my house, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS! Guns are not just for hunting you fool!

So all of a sudden instead of spewing your lies of how Democrats do not want to ban our guns, as they did in New York with guns that WERE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, you instantly twist your lies and say "This is a simple regulation". LOL, I guess this is not banning guns even though those hunting rifles in your homes would now be BANNED! YOU TOTAL DECEPTIVE FOOL!

Ok, now I get it.... Democrats do not want to ban our guns, they just want to regulate our guns. FOOL!

As I said, no Democrat is going to admit their goal is to ban our guns as they did in Europe. They will simply ban, I mean "regulate" our guns one step at a time.

You just said.....

"In some states. And in others you can have conceiled carry. Some democratic states ban it. Some democratic states (like Mass) allow it. If the democrats all want to ban guns and theyre all in consensus that this is their supreme ultimate goal, how come so many democratic states disagree with each other on what gun reform to pass? How come mass allows conceiled carry if theyre banning it in other blue states? How does that line up in any way with your narrative that they want to ban guns?"

Now I want you to remember back a few years when people like myself were giving the truth of how those on the Left wanted to force every state in America to change their marriage laws.

I want you to replace the wording of how some Blue States did not ban conceiled weapons, and replace those words with how some Blue States did not support changing their marriage laws.

DO YOU GET IT NOW? Liars and deceivers will never admit their ultimate goal! Using your deception, the Left did not want to force all states to change their marriage laws!

WHAT HAPPENED! The Democrat party has loaded the supreme court with activist Justices and FORCED every state to change their marriage laws!

The same thing that will hapen with our freedoms to own guns and to have conceiled weapons. You know it to be true and the sick part is you could care less!

In your sick twisted world of double standards, it is ok to ban things you don't like, but if anyone tries to ban something you like, you would be screaming louder than anyone. HYPOCRITE!

I never said ALL Democrats want to ban our guns. I said the vast majority of Democrat politicians controlling our Government and appointing Justices. They will never admit it you total fool! Democrats like Hillary will appoint acitivst Justices who will one day ban our guns as they tried to start doing in New York.

I will not waste another second responding you your total deception.

Side: Absolutely true

And in calling for that, you make them just as bad as the worst among them.

Side: Doubtful
4 points

When destroying a cancerous tumour some healthy cells have to be sacrificed for the overall good of the patient. In this instance the ''means definitely justifies the end''. ''If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out''. A line must be drawn in the sand to the Islamization of the west, enough is enough. Muslim terrorists have caused slaughter on the streets of America, almost every country in Europe, Australia, and canada, not to mention the carnage they have inflicted on the African continent. We cannot rely on our weak kneed, white livered politicians to do what needs to be done. The people's of the west must vote for right wing politicians who can recognize what's happening and have the will and moral fibre to stamp on the head of the snake.

Side: Absolutely true
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Right wing politicians don't even have the will and moral fiber to attempt being in office. How are they supposed to stop terrorism? Look at America: right wing politicians couldn't even win against just right wing candidates. Then look at England: the Brexit vote was a success and all the right wing politicians decide to not even try to be prime minister.

Side: Doubtful
1 point

Ah yes, be evil to kill evil.

Because it's better for you to be the genocidal madman than for someone else to be, right?

Go back to your white supremacy.

Side: Doubtful
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

You Democrats have the struggle of ideology. Your handlers have trained you well. Because your handlers will not view the history of the ideology.

Side: Absolutely true
1 point

Practically anything can be a weapon. The stem on a birds feather that could be made into a weapon. How about a baby's diaper that can be wrapped around someone's throat. Apparently even water itself (I believe the term is called waterboarding).

It boils down to what is the purpose of the item we are using, cars can be used to kill but where they designed to do so? Broken glass can kill but is it designed to do so? What are rifles, guns designed to do?

That comment guns don't kill people do [I have yet to see a human being travel towards another human being at 300 feet per second]

Side: Doubtful

Comparing trucks and guns is false equivalence.

Guns indended use is to put bullets into their target, killing or injuring it. Whether that be an animal, or in the case of handguns and AR-15s, a human being.

A truck's intended use is to safely transport people and material goods from one location to another.

They are not the same. You are not clever by saying "durrr what are you gonna do now? Ban trucks?"

Side: Doubtful
Amritangshu(892) Disputed
1 point

What I mean by the title of the debate is that the weapon is the choice of the murderer/mass-slaughterer but in all instances it's the radicalization and malicious-driven motive which is the real tragedy-so the Left should not have used the Orlando incident to bash the conservatives for going for lesser gun restrictions

REMEMBER: Guns don't pull trigger, it's the people who do it

Side: Absolutely true

Improvisation is always an option with those intent on mass murder. In this case the ''armed'' Muslim decided that a truck was going to be the more effective means by which to murder civilians. French police now say that he had planned the route of his death ride days before the incident, so he wasn't the drugged up, deranged simpleton some lefties try to make out. He was a calculating and cold blooded Muslim terrorist who should never been in France. The sinister and spine chilling feature about this atrocity is that it will highlight the increased efficiency of a heavy goods vehicle over a firearm in order to cause maximum fatalities and injuries. If this does spark a spate of Muslims using commercial vehicles to cause carnage the authorities may well have to look at restricting such forms of transport in built up areas during busy times or festivals. If this does happen it will be another graphic illustration of the spinless western government treating the symptoms instead of tackling the disease.

Side: Absolutely true
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Simply put, it's easier to kill people with guns than trucks.

It's easier to kill people with guns than just about anything else. So they say "Hey, why don't we make it harder for people to kill people easily"?

It's really not an unreasonable thing to say, even after this instance. It's the methods they try to implement this intent that become problematic.

Side: Absolutely true
AveSatanas(4437) Disputed
1 point

In Orlando a person who was investigated by the FBI multiple times got access to a gun. Its totally reasonable to assess our gun laws after something like that. Our gun laws allow people on no fly lists and fbi watch lists to get guns easily. That is a problem . that doesn't mean we can't also address the scorge of Islamic radicalisation .

Side: Doubtful
1 point

Truck, bomb, biologic, gun. The only one we could do much about would be the gun. So we should ignore it??

I'm for reasonable gun control, not gun confiscation, I have my own! Making assault weapons illegal (once again), would be reasonable! It didn't destroy the Second the first time, and we had fewer "mass" killings!

Side: Doubtful