Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

RFD for firearms debate

fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The link of the debate is here: http://www.debate.org...

Debate: The United States ought to Ban Firearms

This will be an RFD of Hayd and Taj's debate on Gun Ban. It was a very good debate, and amazing from both sides. I was swaying back and forth, but in the end I decided the winner of the debate. It was a very hard choice, but I"ll explain why. I'm not going to go like, "Pro's case", or like that, I will only examine one point at a time.

Framework

In the debate, Pro provides a utilitarian framework. He says that the policy is to create more benefit than cost, or harms. If it does, for example that banning firearms saves few thousands of people, we should ban guns. Con rebuts by saying that the framework isn"t always good. He gives an example of a home with seven acres of land, and the land could have been a center which could have helped a thousand of people, and the government would force to take them out from the utilitarian framework. Con says that this will harm their liberty, and the government would lose purpose. This was a very good rebuttal of the framework, but Pro totally wrecked off, and changed the situation. Pro says that the government needs to provide three things, life, liberty, and security. Pro says that life is more important than liberty, as because without life, no one can have liberty, and life is the most important. Pro says it still should be valued. And as I showed, and as the debate, or Pro showed, the framework is concluded, and should be used, as Con fails to refute it, when he almost did.

Suicides

Now I will go onto Pro's first argument, which is suicides. Pro gives statistics that around 18000 people lives will be saved from banning firearms from suicide. Pro shows that if we ban guns, then it will be harder to suicide, as guns are the easiest to suicide, and can save few thousands of lives if we ban firearms, or guns. Con rebuts by saying that the statistics are a likelihood, not conclusive, that we aren"t really sure that suicides will decrease. Con says that it is inconclusive data. Pro defends by saying that his statistics did give proof, and yes, Con did not refute anything about Pro"s arguments, only saying that statistics were wrong, which is not true, as they were right. No statistic can be conclusive, because if it is, then that means that the debate ended. Pro wins this argument, as Con doesn"t have a legitimate rebuttal to Pro"s argument, only about the sources and statistics, which Pro has proven wrong, and I have accepted that the statistics are good, and I don"t know how Con says they are not conclusive.

Accidents

Pro says and shows statistics and quotes that there are around 15000-19000 accidental shooting every year, and that if we ban guns, then 15000-19000 lives will be saved. Con rebuts by saying that the actually amount of deaths was 505 people, not 15000-19000, and that they were only injuries, as it said in Pro"s source. Pro concedes that he read the source wrong, but he still says that the injuries have an impact. I"ve gotta give this to Pro, as even though Con took the mistake that Pro did, he didn"t rebut the actual arguments, and the accidents also have an impact to the debate, which Con didn"t rebut. Pro wins this argument. Con"s rebuttal about the mistake wasn"t enough for rebutting it, people still DIED from accidental deaths, and Con doesn"t rebut that, so Pro wins this argument. Though the impact of this argument decreased as less people died.

Effectiveness/ Gun production

The last argument that Pro gives in the debate is that guns are effective for criminals, that is why they hold guns. Pro says that if we ban guns, some criminals can"t hold guns, probably only knives and bats, and in the end, the benefits will increase. Con rebuts by saying that there are already 310 million guns in the United States. Con also says that there are cases where people illegally and privately sell and buy guns. Con also says that you can make guns in 3D printers. Pro says that it will deter criminals from getting guns though. Con didn"t rebut the argument about deterring criminals of guns are good. That was the literal point of the argument. Pro says that it requires lot"s of skill to make homemade guns, so it will cost a lot, and criminals will not buy them. Pro wins this argument because Con didn"t refute the argument of deterring criminals from getting guns, therefore Pro wins this argument.

Self-defense

Con shows that around 340,000 cases of self-defense were used from Guns every year. Pro rebuts the argument by saying that the number is irrelevant, and that Con also shows data that guns make more violence and death then no guns. Pro also shows a study that a person with a gun is 4.5 times more likely to get shot then one who does not have a gun. Con says that Pro is talking about the likelihood of something, and no one is really sure. First of all, Pro did show statistics of a test that it was 4.5 times likely to get shot. That was statistics of a test, and that is not a likelihood of something, as the test already proved it. Con fails to defend his argument, only saying that Pro presented a likelihood. Therefore, Pro wins this argument.

Gun Bans increase Crime

Con argues that Gun Bans in the past has increased crime. He gave two examples on New York, and England. He shows that after the gun ban, then gun crime increased way up. Pro rebuts by saying that Con didn"t argue about causation, and what caused the increase in crime is more important then if crime increased or not. Pro gives lots of examples of which could have increased crime, and says that we are not sure that it was from Guns. Con defends by saying that it is only reasonable to say that because guns were banned, and crimes were increased, that it is only reasonable to say that it was because of guns. Con provides a guess, which isn"t good when defending arguments, you need sources. Con doesn"t provide proof that it was actually because of guns, so I have to give this argument to Pro.

Economy Impact


Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

Black Market

Con shows that only 7% of guns are legal, and the rest are illegal. If we ban guns, then the illegal guns, which criminals have won"t be banned, and criminals will then only be the ones with guns, and the citizens will be defenseless. Con also says that criminals don"t follow rules, so they will still have their guns. Pro rebuts by saying that guns come out of factories, and if we ban guns, factories and companies cannot produce guns, making criminals only have the guns that they already have. Then the price will be higher, and criminals cannot buy the guns. Con says that there are 16k blacksmiths, and not only companies. And Con says that Pro didn"t prove anything or rebut about 3D printers, but that is WRONG, as Pro did refute it. Pro does show that still guns will decrease because of this, so Pro wins this argument.

(cont.)
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago

Suicides

Now I will go onto Pro's first argument, which is suicides. Pro gives statistics that around 18000 people lives will be saved from banning firearms from suicide. Pro shows that if we ban guns, then it will be harder to suicide, as guns are the easiest to suicide, and can save few thousands of lives if we ban firearms, or guns. Con rebuts by saying that the statistics are a likelihood, not conclusive, that we aren"t really sure that suicides will decrease. Con says that it is inconclusive data. Pro defends by saying that his statistics did give proof, and yes, Con did not refute anything about Pro"s arguments, only saying that statistics were wrong, which is not true, as they were right. No statistic can be conclusive, because if it is, then that means that the debate ended. Pro wins this argument, as Con doesn"t have a legitimate rebuttal to Pro"s argument, only about the sources and statistics, which Pro has proven wrong, and I have accepted that the statistics are good, and I don"t know how Con says they are not conclusive.

I said the stats where it says "you are more likely to do (insert) " is not conclusive. I already refuted that there were more self-defense cases than there were suicides.


Accidents

Pro says and shows statistics and quotes that there are around 15000-19000 accidental shooting every year, and that if we ban guns, then 15000-19000 lives will be saved. Con rebuts by saying that the actually amount of deaths was 505 people, not 15000-19000, and that they were only injuries, as it said in Pro"s source. Pro concedes that he read the source wrong, but he still says that the injuries have an impact. I"ve gotta give this to Pro, as even though Con took the mistake that Pro did, he didn"t rebut the actual arguments, and the accidents also have an impact to the debate, which Con didn"t rebut. Pro wins this argument. Con"s rebuttal about the mistake wasn"t enough for rebutting it, people still DIED from accidental deaths, and Con doesn"t rebut that, so Pro wins this argument. Though the impact of this argument decreased as less people died.

Effectiveness/ Gun production

The last argument that Pro gives in the debate is that guns are effective for criminals, that is why they hold guns. Pro says that if we ban guns, some criminals can"t hold guns, probably only knives and bats, and in the end, the benefits will increase. Con rebuts by saying that there are already 310 million guns in the United States. Con also says that there are cases where people illegally and privately sell and buy guns. Con also says that you can make guns in 3D printers. Pro says that it will deter criminals from getting guns though. Con didn"t rebut the argument about deterring criminals of guns are good. That was the literal point of the argument. Pro says that it requires lot"s of skill to make homemade guns, so it will cost a lot, and criminals will not buy them. Pro wins this argument because Con didn"t refute the argument of deterring criminals from getting guns, therefore Pro wins this argument.


I clearly said that criminals will just get guns from gunsmiths and from newer technologies. Pro completely conceded those points.

Self-defense

Con shows that around 340,000 cases of self-defense were used from Guns every year. Pro rebuts the argument by saying that the number is irrelevant, and that Con also shows data that guns make more violence and death then no guns. Pro also shows a study that a person with a gun is 4.5 times more likely to get shot then one who does not have a gun. Con says that Pro is talking about the likelihood of something, and no one is really sure. First of all, Pro did show statistics of a test that it was 4.5 times likely to get shot. That was statistics of a test, and that is not a likelihood of something, as the test already proved it. Con fails to defend his argument, only saying that Pro presented a likelihood. Therefore, Pro wins this argument.

It is the likelyhood... That's why you are "4.5 times likely to get shot. " You are contradicting yourself here.

This goes to other voters has well. Why are you deciding that the likelyhood of getting shot has more weight than raw statistics that show self-defense.
Gun Bans increase Crime

Con argues that Gun Bans in the past has increased crime. He gave two examples on New York, and England. He shows that after the gun ban, then gun crime increased way up. Pro rebuts by saying that Con didn"t argue about causation, and what caused the increase in crime is more important then if crime increased or not. Pro gives lots of examples of which could have increased crime, and says that we are not sure that it was from Guns. Con defends by saying that it is only reasonable to say that because guns were banned, and crimes were increased, that it is only reasonable to say that it was because of guns. Con provides a guess, which isn"t good when defending arguments, you need sources. Con doesn"t provide proof that it was actually because of guns, so I have to give this argument to Pro.

Economy Impact


Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

Black Market

Con shows that only 7% of guns are legal, and the rest are illegal. If we ban guns, then the illegal guns, which criminals have won"t be banned, and criminals will then only be the ones with guns, and the citizens will be defenseless. Con also says that criminals don"t follow rules, so they will still have their guns. Pro rebuts by saying that guns come out of factories, and if we ban guns, factories and companies cannot produce guns, making criminals only have the guns that they already have. Then the price will be higher, and criminals cannot buy the guns. Con says that there are 16k blacksmiths, and not only companies. And Con says that Pro didn"t prove anything or rebut about 3D printers, but that is WRONG, as Pro did refute it. Pro does show that still guns will decrease because of this, so Pro wins this argument.

No he doesn't. Please quote where he said that. He completely ignored it. His only rebutall was "guns require alot of skill to craft".
(cont.)
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:21:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.

Dude you need to read the debate properly. You missed key points.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:21:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:20:11 PM, tajshar2k wrote:

Suicides

Now I will go onto Pro's first argument, which is suicides. Pro gives statistics that around 18000 people lives will be saved from banning firearms from suicide. Pro shows that if we ban guns, then it will be harder to suicide, as guns are the easiest to suicide, and can save few thousands of lives if we ban firearms, or guns. Con rebuts by saying that the statistics are a likelihood, not conclusive, that we aren"t really sure that suicides will decrease. Con says that it is inconclusive data. Pro defends by saying that his statistics did give proof, and yes, Con did not refute anything about Pro"s arguments, only saying that statistics were wrong, which is not true, as they were right. No statistic can be conclusive, because if it is, then that means that the debate ended. Pro wins this argument, as Con doesn"t have a legitimate rebuttal to Pro"s argument, only about the sources and statistics, which Pro has proven wrong, and I have accepted that the statistics are good, and I don"t know how Con says they are not conclusive.

I said the stats where it says "you are more likely to do (insert) " is not conclusive. I already refuted that there were more self-defense cases than there were suicides.

But then Pro already refuted that your self-defense argument. Pro proved that guns will make more deaths. You didn't refute that



Accidents

Pro says and shows statistics and quotes that there are around 15000-19000 accidental shooting every year, and that if we ban guns, then 15000-19000 lives will be saved. Con rebuts by saying that the actually amount of deaths was 505 people, not 15000-19000, and that they were only injuries, as it said in Pro"s source. Pro concedes that he read the source wrong, but he still says that the injuries have an impact. I"ve gotta give this to Pro, as even though Con took the mistake that Pro did, he didn"t rebut the actual arguments, and the accidents also have an impact to the debate, which Con didn"t rebut. Pro wins this argument. Con"s rebuttal about the mistake wasn"t enough for rebutting it, people still DIED from accidental deaths, and Con doesn"t rebut that, so Pro wins this argument. Though the impact of this argument decreased as less people died.

Effectiveness/ Gun production

The last argument that Pro gives in the debate is that guns are effective for criminals, that is why they hold guns. Pro says that if we ban guns, some criminals can"t hold guns, probably only knives and bats, and in the end, the benefits will increase. Con rebuts by saying that there are already 310 million guns in the United States. Con also says that there are cases where people illegally and privately sell and buy guns. Con also says that you can make guns in 3D printers. Pro says that it will deter criminals from getting guns though. Con didn"t rebut the argument about deterring criminals of guns are good. That was the literal point of the argument. Pro says that it requires lot"s of skill to make homemade guns, so it will cost a lot, and criminals will not buy them. Pro wins this argument because Con didn"t refute the argument of deterring criminals from getting guns, therefore Pro wins this argument.


I clearly said that criminals will just get guns from gunsmiths and from newer technologies. Pro completely conceded those points.


Self-defense

Con shows that around 340,000 cases of self-defense were used from Guns every year. Pro rebuts the argument by saying that the number is irrelevant, and that Con also shows data that guns make more violence and death then no guns. Pro also shows a study that a person with a gun is 4.5 times more likely to get shot then one who does not have a gun. Con says that Pro is talking about the likelihood of something, and no one is really sure. First of all, Pro did show statistics of a test that it was 4.5 times likely to get shot. That was statistics of a test, and that is not a likelihood of something, as the test already proved it. Con fails to defend his argument, only saying that Pro presented a likelihood. Therefore, Pro wins this argument.

It is the likelyhood... That's why you are "4.5 times likely to get shot. " You are contradicting yourself here.

This goes to other voters has well. Why are you deciding that the likelyhood of getting shot has more weight than raw statistics that show self-defense.
Gun Bans increase Crime

Con argues that Gun Bans in the past has increased crime. He gave two examples on New York, and England. He shows that after the gun ban, then gun crime increased way up. Pro rebuts by saying that Con didn"t argue about causation, and what caused the increase in crime is more important then if crime increased or not. Pro gives lots of examples of which could have increased crime, and says that we are not sure that it was from Guns. Con defends by saying that it is only reasonable to say that because guns were banned, and crimes were increased, that it is only reasonable to say that it was because of guns. Con provides a guess, which isn"t good when defending arguments, you need sources. Con doesn"t provide proof that it was actually because of guns, so I have to give this argument to Pro.

Economy Impact


Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

Black Market

Con shows that only 7% of guns are legal, and the rest are illegal. If we ban guns, then the illegal guns, which criminals have won"t be banned, and criminals will then only be the ones with guns, and the citizens will be defenseless. Con also says that criminals don"t follow rules, so they will still have their guns. Pro rebuts by saying that guns come out of factories, and if we ban guns, factories and companies cannot produce guns, making criminals only have the guns that they already have. Then the price will be higher, and criminals cannot buy the guns. Con says that there are 16k blacksmiths, and not only companies. And Con says that Pro didn"t prove anything or rebut about 3D printers, but that is WRONG, as Pro did refute it. Pro does show that still guns will decrease because of this, so Pro wins this argument.

No he doesn't. Please quote where he said that. He completely ignored it. His only rebutall was "guns require alot of skill to craft".
(cont.)
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:21:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:21:13 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.

Dude you need to read the debate properly. You missed key points.

What did I miss?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:24:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:21:38 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:20:11 PM, tajshar2k wrote:

Suicides

Now I will go onto Pro's first argument, which is suicides. Pro gives statistics that around 18000 people lives will be saved from banning firearms from suicide. Pro shows that if we ban guns, then it will be harder to suicide, as guns are the easiest to suicide, and can save few thousands of lives if we ban firearms, or guns. Con rebuts by saying that the statistics are a likelihood, not conclusive, that we aren"t really sure that suicides will decrease. Con says that it is inconclusive data. Pro defends by saying that his statistics did give proof, and yes, Con did not refute anything about Pro"s arguments, only saying that statistics were wrong, which is not true, as they were right. No statistic can be conclusive, because if it is, then that means that the debate ended. Pro wins this argument, as Con doesn"t have a legitimate rebuttal to Pro"s argument, only about the sources and statistics, which Pro has proven wrong, and I have accepted that the statistics are good, and I don"t know how Con says they are not conclusive.

I said the stats where it says "you are more likely to do (insert) " is not conclusive. I already refuted that there were more self-defense cases than there were suicides.

But then Pro already refuted that your self-defense argument. Pro proved that guns will make more deaths. You didn't refute that

What did he refute? Quote it. His only rebutall was that the likelyhood is more important. (He doesn't even explain why it should be more important.)



Accidents

Pro says and shows statistics and quotes that there are around 15000-19000 accidental shooting every year, and that if we ban guns, then 15000-19000 lives will be saved. Con rebuts by saying that the actually amount of deaths was 505 people, not 15000-19000, and that they were only injuries, as it said in Pro"s source. Pro concedes that he read the source wrong, but he still says that the injuries have an impact. I"ve gotta give this to Pro, as even though Con took the mistake that Pro did, he didn"t rebut the actual arguments, and the accidents also have an impact to the debate, which Con didn"t rebut. Pro wins this argument. Con"s rebuttal about the mistake wasn"t enough for rebutting it, people still DIED from accidental deaths, and Con doesn"t rebut that, so Pro wins this argument. Though the impact of this argument decreased as less people died.

Effectiveness/ Gun production

The last argument that Pro gives in the debate is that guns are effective for criminals, that is why they hold guns. Pro says that if we ban guns, some criminals can"t hold guns, probably only knives and bats, and in the end, the benefits will increase. Con rebuts by saying that there are already 310 million guns in the United States. Con also says that there are cases where people illegally and privately sell and buy guns. Con also says that you can make guns in 3D printers. Pro says that it will deter criminals from getting guns though. Con didn"t rebut the argument about deterring criminals of guns are good. That was the literal point of the argument. Pro says that it requires lot"s of skill to make homemade guns, so it will cost a lot, and criminals will not buy them. Pro wins this argument because Con didn"t refute the argument of deterring criminals from getting guns, therefore Pro wins this argument.


I clearly said that criminals will just get guns from gunsmiths and from newer technologies. Pro completely conceded those points.


Self-defense

Con shows that around 340,000 cases of self-defense were used from Guns every year. Pro rebuts the argument by saying that the number is irrelevant, and that Con also shows data that guns make more violence and death then no guns. Pro also shows a study that a person with a gun is 4.5 times more likely to get shot then one who does not have a gun. Con says that Pro is talking about the likelihood of something, and no one is really sure. First of all, Pro did show statistics of a test that it was 4.5 times likely to get shot. That was statistics of a test, and that is not a likelihood of something, as the test already proved it. Con fails to defend his argument, only saying that Pro presented a likelihood. Therefore, Pro wins this argument.

It is the likelyhood... That's why you are "4.5 times likely to get shot. " You are contradicting yourself here.

This goes to other voters has well. Why are you deciding that the likelyhood of getting shot has more weight than raw statistics that show self-defense.
Gun Bans increase Crime

Con argues that Gun Bans in the past has increased crime. He gave two examples on New York, and England. He shows that after the gun ban, then gun crime increased way up. Pro rebuts by saying that Con didn"t argue about causation, and what caused the increase in crime is more important then if crime increased or not. Pro gives lots of examples of which could have increased crime, and says that we are not sure that it was from Guns. Con defends by saying that it is only reasonable to say that because guns were banned, and crimes were increased, that it is only reasonable to say that it was because of guns. Con provides a guess, which isn"t good when defending arguments, you need sources. Con doesn"t provide proof that it was actually because of guns, so I have to give this argument to Pro.

Economy Impact


Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

Black Market

Con shows that only 7% of guns are legal, and the rest are illegal. If we ban guns, then the illegal guns, which criminals have won"t be banned, and criminals will then only be the ones with guns, and the citizens will be defenseless. Con also says that criminals don"t follow rules, so they will still have their guns. Pro rebuts by saying that guns come out of factories, and if we ban guns, factories and companies cannot produce guns, making criminals only have the guns that they already have. Then the price will be higher, and criminals cannot buy the guns. Con says that there are 16k blacksmiths, and not only companies. And Con says that Pro didn"t prove anything or rebut about 3D printers, but that is WRONG, as Pro did refute it. Pro does show that still guns will decrease because of this, so Pro wins this argument.

No he doesn't. Please quote where he said that. He completely ignored it. His only rebutall was "guns require alot of skill to craft".
(cont.)
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:24:31 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:21:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:21:13 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.

Dude you need to read the debate properly. You missed key points.

What did I miss?

Practically everything I said about gun production.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:16:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:24:31 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:21:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:21:13 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.

Dude you need to read the debate properly. You missed key points.

What did I miss?

Practically everything I said about gun production.

I said, "Con rebuts by saying that there are already 310 million guns in the United States. Con also says that there are cases where people illegally and privately sell and buy guns. Con also says that you can make guns in 3D printers. Pro says that it will deter criminals from getting guns though. Con didn"t rebut the argument about deterring criminals of guns are good. That was the literal point of the argument."

That's a lot.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
lannan13
Posts: 23,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Just go and post this in the misc section and stop spamming these other forums.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:36:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:07:38 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

That wasn't my rebuttal. You ignore my entire argument about the economic cost to society due to guns, which outweighs the economic cost caused by banning guns thus turning the argument.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:25:59 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Just go and post this in the misc section and stop spamming these other forums.

Most people post them in here, misc or society.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:54:31 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:36:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:07:38 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

That wasn't my rebuttal. You ignore my entire argument about the economic cost to society due to guns, which outweighs the economic cost caused by banning guns thus turning the argument.

Hayd you said, "Although the banning of guns would lead to unemployment for many people, which would lead to economic repercussions, the highest value in this debate is lives. Even the prevention of a few hundred deaths would alone outweigh the economic harms. So although this is true, the impact is miniscule compared to the impacts of lives saved.

But more interestingly, the social cost of firearms is fairly high. Through homicides, accidents, and various other harms, it is estimated that firearms cost society (at the most conservative estimate) $600 per household [3]. Considering that there are 124.6 million households in the US [4], firearms cost society around $74,760,000,000 or $74 billion dollars. This obviously outweighs the $6 billion dollars that Con brought up. And my statistic is still the most conservative amount, the highest being $1,800 per household. Which is would be three times the amount of money, but I don't need to get into that since $74 billion is enough to negate this argument. "

I did say about the 74 billion dollars, but in the end Con refuted it by saying that all the money, some of it goes to the economy. That's a sufficient rebuttal to win the point, so Con wins the point.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:03:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:54:31 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:36:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:07:38 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

That wasn't my rebuttal. You ignore my entire argument about the economic cost to society due to guns, which outweighs the economic cost caused by banning guns thus turning the argument.

Hayd you said, "Although the banning of guns would lead to unemployment for many people, which would lead to economic repercussions, the highest value in this debate is lives. Even the prevention of a few hundred deaths would alone outweigh the economic harms. So although this is true, the impact is miniscule compared to the impacts of lives saved.

But more interestingly, the social cost of firearms is fairly high. Through homicides, accidents, and various other harms, it is estimated that firearms cost society (at the most conservative estimate) $600 per household [3]. Considering that there are 124.6 million households in the US [4], firearms cost society around $74,760,000,000 or $74 billion dollars. This obviously outweighs the $6 billion dollars that Con brought up. And my statistic is still the most conservative amount, the highest being $1,800 per household. Which is would be three times the amount of money, but I don't need to get into that since $74 billion is enough to negate this argument. "

I did say about the 74 billion dollars, but in the end Con refuted it by saying that all the money, some of it goes to the economy. That's a sufficient rebuttal to win the point, so Con wins the point.

Why would only the economy matter, doesn't societal money matter? If so, why does the economy matter more than social money, and how are they even different?
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:09:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 10:03:56 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 7:54:31 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:36:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:07:38 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Con shows that guns help the economy, and thousands of jobs. Con says that if we ban guns, all the jobs will go down the drain, and the money will not help the economy. Con shows that 6 million dollars will be lost. Pro rebuts by saying that lives are more important than the economy, but that isn"t a good rebuttal, and argues that we payed over 70 billion dollars for guns, and 70 billion is bigger than 6 million. Con then shows that when you buy money, the money isn"t thrown away, the money is then going to the economy, and the companies. Con wins this argument, as he successfully shows that guns harm the economy.

That wasn't my rebuttal. You ignore my entire argument about the economic cost to society due to guns, which outweighs the economic cost caused by banning guns thus turning the argument.

Hayd you said, "Although the banning of guns would lead to unemployment for many people, which would lead to economic repercussions, the highest value in this debate is lives. Even the prevention of a few hundred deaths would alone outweigh the economic harms. So although this is true, the impact is miniscule compared to the impacts of lives saved.

But more interestingly, the social cost of firearms is fairly high. Through homicides, accidents, and various other harms, it is estimated that firearms cost society (at the most conservative estimate) $600 per household [3]. Considering that there are 124.6 million households in the US [4], firearms cost society around $74,760,000,000 or $74 billion dollars. This obviously outweighs the $6 billion dollars that Con brought up. And my statistic is still the most conservative amount, the highest being $1,800 per household. Which is would be three times the amount of money, but I don't need to get into that since $74 billion is enough to negate this argument. "

I did say about the 74 billion dollars, but in the end Con refuted it by saying that all the money, some of it goes to the economy. That's a sufficient rebuttal to win the point, so Con wins the point.

Why would only the economy matter, doesn't societal money matter? If so, why does the economy matter more than social money, and how are they even different?

by societal money, what do you mean? The money that the society uses?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.

This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 2:37:57 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.

I don't really care, tbh.

I am deeply saddened by the quality of votes which were on the debate, and the more correct ballots that are cast the better.

Bob and that other idiot can cast their ballots and that's fine. More voters need to vote, and only good voters need to do it.
Tsar of DDO
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/17/2016 4:08:05 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Part 2


Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state


I don"t know how to judge this argument. It"s hard to judge this one. Con argues that 90% of citizens don"t want guns to be banned, and Pro argues that this isn"t and shouldn"t be a point in the debate. It is true that what the citizens say shouldn"t be an argument for the debate, so I will be weighing this argument as null for both sides.

Outcome

In Pro"s side I have is suicides, accidents, and effectiveness. The argument I have in Con"s side is economy. But, lives are much more important than anything else, then economy, and the arguments that Pro has shows that banning guns save lives, I have no choice, but to vote for Pro, as Pro is the clear winner of the debate. Pro obviously won, but this was a good debate for both of you. I will first be nullifying my vote, and if any of you think I should not nullify my vote, then ask me, and I will vote for Pro then.

I vote for Pro.

This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

thanks.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:01:53 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.

I will get them 2 days later, in the 20th. (I will never do null votes again)
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:33:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 2:37:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.

I don't really care, tbh.

I am deeply saddened by the quality of votes which were on the debate, and the more correct ballots that are cast the better.

Bob and that other idiot can cast their ballots and that's fine. More voters need to vote, and only good voters need to do it.

lol @ the "other idiot"
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:57:19 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:01:53 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.

I will get them 2 days later, in the 20th. (I will never do null votes again)

That's not the reason your privileges were removed. Not the sole reason, anyway.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 11:18:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:57:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:01:53 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.

I will get them 2 days later, in the 20th. (I will never do null votes again)

That's not the reason your privileges were removed. Not the sole reason, anyway.

It was that in 2 months I got 11 votes removed, and 8 were votes, "I will vote on this later."
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 11:18:38 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:57:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:01:53 AM, fire_wings wrote:
At 8/18/2016 2:35:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:30:53 AM, YYW wrote:
This is not bad. You got the right answer and got it right for the right reason about 80 percent. You should assign points, because Hayd earned them.

As I recall, Hayd requested him not to assign points, in the comments section.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have his voting privileges either... maybe he has them now. Idk.

I will get them 2 days later, in the 20th. (I will never do null votes again)

That's not the reason your privileges were removed. Not the sole reason, anyway.

And one was a vote I just made which was updated 5 years ago, but it got removed.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka