Debate Rounds (4)
If you respect the army and enjoy comedy, watch George Carlin's skit on flamethrowers.
Transcription of the argument is as follows.
George Carlin: Think for a moment about the concept of the flamethrower. Okay? The flamethrower. Because we have them. Well, *we* don't have them, the army has them. That's right. We don't have any flamethrowers. I'd say we're fucked if we have to go up against the army, wouldn't you? But we have flamethrowers. And what this indicates to me, it means that at some point, some person said to himself, "Gee, I sure would like to set those people on fire over there. But I'm way to far away to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw flame on them." Well, it might have ended right there, but he mentioned it to his friend. His friend who was good with tools. And about a month later, he was back. "Hey, quite a concept!" WHHOOOOOOOOSSHHH! And of course the army heard about it, and they came around. "We'd like to buy about five hundred-thousand of them please. We have some people we'd like to throw flame on. Give us five hundred thousand and paint them dark brown. We don't want anyone to see them."
Are flamethrowers not enough? There's a long running gag on Amazon.com. Keep reading.
"I'll admit it. Shopping for a personal tank can be a bit daunting. Many times in the past I've purchased overpriced, so-called "battle tanks", then driven them into battle only to be wrecked in ten minutes by the first blow off of some insurgents home-made mortar." ... "The only real negative with this tank is that it shows up on radar a little more than I like (although there is a poly resin graphite stealth model available). Also, the included spare isn't full size."
The Super Star Destroyer you want is called the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor with a unit cost of $150,000,000.00
The United States owns almost two hundred of these babies! Perhaps you could save up a little and buy one. What would you do with it? Maybe you could blow up a building or something.
Maybe you can do without air support. A bad military tactic, but maybe you could buy the Badonkadonk(tm) mentioned above. Compare your neighborhood attempt to overthrow the government with the list of currently active United States military land vehicles.
Best of All Worlds
Silly me, I forgot. The USS Enterprise is for sale!!! $451.3 million if you have the right connections.
Note that the USA is considering aircraft carriers. The expenditure of $24,000,000,000.00 give or take a few pennies. That's for seven or eight aircraft carriers to replace the Enterprise.
Maybe after conquering the United States military, you could take China! Or just nuc them!!
 USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
Besides, we have the blaster pistol now.
Why should I be UPSET if someone had an F-22 Raptor? I wish I owned one. However, I wouldn't take any enemies on if they leave me alone. I'd love a tank, too, but it costs too much and it would be pretty hard to fit it into my garage. In short, I wouldn't mind if someone built a real life Star Destroyer (Please tell me where I can find one), except I'd be a little nervous if someone built the Death Star, since it can destroy the entire planet in one shot.
Please mail me the Star Ship Enterprise!
Another common cause of accidental discharges from a gun is accidentally pulling the trigger before you are ready. How many lives would be saved if people ALWAYS obeyed this one rule to never point the gun at someone.
As for suicides, the mere fact that so many people commit suicide is proof that something is wrong with our American culture.
However, crime is a different issue. We can't eliminate crime unless we made it unprofitable. Like it or not, there are always people who will be dishonest for profit. I don't think banning guns will help, since criminals can collect a gun some other way. As for a 3-D printer, how about if 3-D printers that can print a gun or gun parts be given the same restrictions as an actual gun? Would that appease both sides of the debate?
>> I agree with you that 100,000 people are shot annually
I never said that, neither did my source.
>> the best way to reduce accidental deaths is to have people learn how to use a gun safely.
I never made that argument.
>> How many lives would be saved if people ALWAYS obeyed this one rule to never point the gun at someone.
A miniscule number, to be sure.
Note to reader: ALWAYS BE SAFE WITH FIREARMS. Just a FYI.
>> We can't eliminate crime unless we made it unprofitable.
Actually, pro-choice abortion and removal of lead from gasoline had a lot to do with the reduction in violent crime in recent years.
>>As for a 3-D printer, how about if 3-D printers that can print a gun
You must understand a 3d printer. It operates using paste like modeling clay. Metal must be die cast or machined.
>>rule #1 is ALWAYS KEEP THE GUN POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION.
My point is that 19,392 people prefer to hold a gun inside their mouth. Pointed towards their brains. Maybe with a suicide note left considerately by their desk. Kaboom!
>>As for suicides, the mere fact that so many people commit suicide is proof that something is wrong with our American culture.
This is ignorance of the global stage. China, France, Poland, Greenland, Russia, all of these have more serious national depression than the United States.
Here is a list of countries, from most depressed to least depressed.
Guyana (more info)
Kazakhstan (more info)
Japan (more info)
Ukraine (more info)
Serbia and Montenegro
France (more info)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
United Kingdom (more info)
Canada (more info)
Trinidad and Tobago
India (more info)
Republic of Macedonia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Antigua and Barbuda
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Both side used decent arguments and a variety of sources. I found Nimbuses arguments slight more convincing, even though I disagree with them.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.