The Instigator
Apolitical
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FollowerofChrist1955
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Liberals are winning the gun debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 112037
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Apolitical

Pro

Lets try this again since my last debate was derailed...

What is the starting point for every gun debate today? Someone suggests the population shouldn't own "assault weapons" and their opponent suggests they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Which is hardly arguable.

Why do we start at this point? How did we get to this paradigm where advocates for the Second Amendment accept the premise that we should not own fully automatic weapons and that is where we start the conversation?

It is because those who are strongly against the Second Amendment (or perhaps those in favor of total government control) have already won the debate. Concessions to this viewpoint have already been made and those who are pro-Second Amendment have already accepted the premise that some weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to own and should only be controlled by the government. Liberties have already been severely encroached upon in favor of security.

There are only two explanations for why this debate is framed the way it is today. One could be that pro-gun individuals lack the clarity to comprehend the bigger picture since it has never been brought to their attention or framed in this manner. The second is that they tacitly agree with the principles of public safety anti-gun individuals advocate. They believe the same things in principle and don't believe that the public should have access to certain weapons.

If your argument is not based on principles such as equal access to weapons for government and citizens then how can you win? You are not making a principled argument when you say we should have access to AR-15s. What government entity uses AR-15s? Why are these the weapons that the line is drawn over? Does the Second Amendment guarantee your rights to bear arms unless they are automatic weapons? Eventually your rights will be paired back further and further, as they have been for many years now, until nothing is left. All in the name of public safety.

Do you actually believe in the Second Amendment? Why not fight to reinstate full rights for gun owners instead of quibbling over the already pitiful list of guns the government allows you to own today? Unless you do agree, in principle, with those who want to take away your "assault weapons."

https://www.youtube.com......
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

The second amendment was drafted some time ago. We must accept that those changes that HAVE occurred, and WILL occur are predicated on Government oversight, not citizen oversight. WE VOTE for those elected officials, in the hopes that THEY have our best interest at Heart.

Consequently, the majority have only keeping their jobs at heart! Thus they swing whichever way the stronger wind blows! That's just the facts!

You may not think my next topic has anything to DO with the topic at hand! You of course would BE WRONG! It does? it demonstrates how Lobbies can be powerful, though a minority! LGBT is 4% of the population yet 96% of America MUST now acquiesce the 4% WHY? LOBBY. and Americans not standing up!

Same thing here. There never was a restriction on guns at all TILL lobbies got involved! Realistically speaking, Government can say what Gunsmiths CAN and CANNOT sell. I mean, Marijuana is a plant but is restricted on sales isn't it? The Government need only pass a law stating what Gunsmiths CAN SELL. That's not depriving you of owning a weapon, it's just limiting the weapon you can OWN! That law was never meant as a catch all statement and you KNOW THIS! to pretend that the founding fathers in their narrow view intended that the average citizen should be able to own a HOWITZER is ludicrous.

Like the LIBERAL LEFT as you call it is OVER REACHING is nothing of the kind. It simply stands to reason that in a civilized society, must be held to a social norm, TO much and it self destructs, to little and it fails to thrive! anything taken in more than moderation is a BAD THING not a good thing! That you want to OWN a tank, does not GIVE YOU the right to OWN ONE, because of a legislation initiated at a time when no such item existed!

To even attempt to suggest that the founding Fathers would approve ownership of ASSAULT RIFLES to the general public, merely demonstrates a Human and NARROW view of the founding Fathers. I don't for an instant believe the founding Fathers would approve of the majority of what Government is doing today!

They would have shut down the LGBT, just as surely as your right to own an Uzi, or AK-47. Why? Based strictly upon need!
For you to have sex with animals, children or same sex, is as pointless as you owning an AK-47. The why is A GIVEN to anyone with a modicum of sensibility.

Weapons of mass destruction have no business in the hands of laity. Machine Guns HAVE ONLY one purpose ... to KILL IN MASS, no one no where can dispute this. If your not Grizzly Adams, then your not going to be set upon by a Pack of Wolves, thus you need no weapon capable of killing hundreds in minutes ... can you see this?

Despite your argument to the contrary ... you MUST JUSTIFY by RATIONAL THOUGHT the NEED for a citizen to OWN a weapon of mass destruction?

You may wince at type and use of term, but the term cannot be set aside. That IS what these weapons ARE! No denying they are capable and used specifically for MASS KILLING in a COMBAT SITUATION ONLY! THAT'S the reason they are provided to the Military ALONE!

That some nutcase started selling them to civilians has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety requirements MERELY PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN ALONE!

This nonsense of Rogue government, has been around since George Washington. You haven't gone rogue yet? Even if you did, what the Military has could easily quash any small rebellion. It is NUMBERS that is the power you possess. 20 Million rioters with small arms could quickly inflict massive damage to this or any Government. You don't need big weapons ... just Men of Courage and commitment!

So shall we dispense with the BULL? You don't need weapons of Mass killing in the hands of the citizens. It just isn't necessary and should not have been allowed in the first place!

As to the REALITIES of Life THERE IS NO GUN PROBLEM! People just refuse to see the reality for what it really is. No denying the Facts people!

You KILL almost a million BABIES LEGALLY without blinking? But 15,549 of YOU die by Gun violence and you wet yourselves? OH PLEASE!

Take a pill for Pete's sakes. People we have 325.7 Million people in the United states alone. that 15,549 of that number died last year doesn't even REGISTER in percentage points, but your ready to DISARM US ALL, because you lose bladder control. Start THINKING from the standpoint of Maturity!

People DIE, that's just a FACT of LIFE! You kicked God out now suck up the consequence of your action! Look at REALITY not fiction?

Statistics ALONE doesn't SUPPORT that a GUN PROBLEM even EXISTS!


Statistically. speaking:

https://www.cnn.com......

Number of School Shootings this year = 17

Your MORE likely to get HIT by a BUS! Than shot in a school!

Wanna do the math? 17 is what percentage of 143,850 schools?

True percentage = 0.01 percent of the US schools.

https://www.thetrace.org......

15,549 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2017

Wanna do the Math?

15,549 people out of 325.7 MILLION is what …

Actual percentage= 0.01 percent

In 2014: 926,200 abortions were performed Killed legally by your government? THAT'S 0.28%

you haven't said a WORD! SEE the reality? You scream and wet yourself at 0.01% but have ZERO problem with 0.28% of BABIES being Killed?

You'll get no sympathy from me!

http://asirt.org......
Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. You aren't outlawing CARS?

https://www.cancer.gov......
Cancer-595,690 people will die from the disease.Mar 22, 2017
over 1.8 Million new diagnosed each year

https://www.healthyplace.com......
Nearly 5.3 million incidents of domestic violence occur annually among US women aged 18 years and older, with 3.2 million occurring among men

Yeah, we got problems .... but GUNS, is not the problem.

AND the answer to the question is NO, the second Amendment did not grant you the RIGHT to own ANY KIND OF WEAPON MADE. Just the right to bear arms. PERIOD! that DOESN'T INCLUDE weapons of Mass destruction and killing power. That my friend YOU have INFERED ... it is indefensible in the text!
Debate Round No. 1
Apolitical

Pro

First of all thank you for accepting this debate and thank you for addressing the issues I raised instead of spouting off generic pro-gun, anti-gun arguments.

With that being said, I will now address the tired old argument that because there were not certain technologies during the time of the founding fathers, these technologies are not covered by the Constitution. Just like the internet. It wasn't around so it's not covered by the First Amendment. Neither is TV or telephones... Why should we be allowed any arms today? They weren't around when the Constitution was written. The Founding Fathers clearly intended that we only be allowed muskets.

And you, the great mind-reader that you are, know exactly what the founders intended and exactly which weapons they thought we should and shouldn't have. How can you say that I am reading something into the Constitution? That is exactly what you have done. I am taking it literally and you are reading in your interpretation that there are certain arms we shouldn't have. Does the Second Amendment state that we have the right to keep and bear arms unless they are capable of mass destruction? Or does it say that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Who is reading things into the Constitution??? Sure seems like you are.

I know that you and the Founding Fathers were pen pals and they told you all their thoughts and feelings on the country and they told you they wouldn't approve of assault rifles or anything else going on in the country today. Unfortunately other people also have their opinions on what the Founding Fathers intended and it might not match up with yours. Now I am curious in your diatribe about LGBT if you personally think these people should be denied rights because in your mind the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve of them just like they don't approve of Uzi's. Please o almighty medium, speak to those long gone and tell us their thoughts. That's just a digression anyway... topic for another debate I suppose.

Actually I don't wince at your definition of the term. The reason for these weapons is effective killing of others often en mass. They are designed for combat and that is their sole practical purpose.

Now let's talk about the BULL, as you put it. You make a good point. No government has ever gone "rogue" (I prefer the term tyrannical) and oppressed it's citizens. And they certainly don't disarm the population before they become oppressive. If this stupid idea were to come true the last thing they would do is disarm the populace.

Oh wait, hold on. Here's a quick list of tyrannical dictators that took over the reins of power in government just in the last century: Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Franco, Gadhafi, Hussein, Mao Zedong, Pinochet, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Kim-Jong-Un, Duvalier... It's not a comprehensive list I am sure I left some out but I think it makes the point. And you think it is a bogus argument that has been around since George Washington... That's exactly right! It has been around since George Washington who led an armed revolt against a tyrannical government! The basis of our country is exactly what you scoff at.

Also great point. We don't need the weapons the government has. We just need the courage to get mown down by the millions when revolting because we don't have the same armaments... 20 million rioters with pistols vs 1.5 million active duty military who wins that fight?

It's incredible that you could say in one sentence "You don't need weapons of Mass killing in the hands of citizens. It just isn't necessary and should not have been allowed in the first place." and then turn around and say "As to the realities of life there is NO GUN PROBLEM." The double-think that is going on in your mind must just make your head spin.

Unless you just posted some random guys argument just to troll or something. HAHAHAHAHA a gun problem doesn't exist but we don't need scary assault guns. "Yeah we got problems... but GUNS, is not the problem" and at the same time "we need strict regulations on guns" hahahahaha wow you are cracking me up.

To sum it up YES. The Second Amendment as it is written does give me the right to bear any arm and that right shall not be infringed. You are INFERRING that it doesn't. Whatever is going on in-between your ears is indefensible.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

You are indeed welcome. As to tired old argument? Quite the contrary, ONLY my argument is of any rational and responsible standard. While yours is clearly made in haste and completely without forethought and mature reflection. Not to mention biased in the extreme!

Let Logic demonstrate:
Undeniable facts ...

as·sault ri·fle
noun
noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles
  1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

1. Assault Weapons are made for Mass Killing, during times of War or conflict! for no other reason are they produced.


2. Bullets are what is fired from all weapons of hunting professionals ... none of which requires multiple Kill capability, as kill limitations are in effect and single digit kills. Thus mass killing is forbidden on ALL GAME ANIMALS!

3. Fowls hunting does not utilize Bullet engagement, negating use of assault rifles for game fowls.

4, Caliber size prevents its use on small game, except the morbid pastime of exploding the small pray, which is decadence not hunting!


5. assault weapons for use on target shooting is not a right as previously stated. The inference being because it was not stated would also hold true on the ownership of Tanks, Helicopters, Machine Guns, Claymore mines, Tow missle defenses, RPG's and the like. Any one of which can be argued under YOUR irresponsible beliefs.

The facts remain valid. Your ENTIRE argument is based on an absurd inferrence and a fabrication of the mind! It is the responsibility of sound mines of the Government to curtail such fanatism, while it remains manageable.


There can be no defense that the founding fathers seriously wished to allow weapons for mass killings in the hands of the common Man. Any attempt to argue oherwise is irrational and completely indefensible under the standards of common sense and decency!

Thus we have two opinions ... each approaching the matter from a certain viewpoint. But ONLY MINE is even in the remote area of intelligent consideration. No offense meant, your argument simply has no real basis in reality!


By your view Civilian people by LEGAL RIGHT may own ANY WEAPON OF MASS KILLING IN any shape or form! This is OBVIOUSLY WRONG!

Under no paradigm could anyone of maturity and reasonable reflection come to so disasterous conclusion as you have come to! You simply cannot defend your take on the second Amendment and you know this.

Oh you would LIKE for it to be true. But NO ONE and I mean NO ONE in their right mind would seriously subscribe to your viewpoint!


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


This speaks of Militia not sports! the right to bear arms ... DOES NOT AND CANNOT INFER TANKS, MINES, TANKS AND ASSAULT WEAPONS OF MASS KILLING.

TELL me YOUR NOT READING INTO THIS STATEMENT! No civilians OWNED CANON's even in THEIR TIME! so please, we may have been born at night, BUT we were not born LAST NIGHT! There can be NO argument .... NO civilians WERE ALLOWED in the whole of History to possess CANON'S for home defense OR recreation EVER!

CASE CLOSED ... you lose! or can you show home ownership of canons for home defense and sports events in our history? cause Unless you can ... and we all know you can't YOUR argument has BEEN PROVEN WRONG, By the Founding fathers themselves. Remember not companies, militias, business concerns I mean common folk. Regular people!
Can you? Can you show this evidence? This WAS during the time of the writing of the declaration of independence? So SHOW us where common folk were ALLOWED to purchase and keep Canon's at home ... which were available at the time of it's writing? HOME DEFENSE, like your excuse for it now is.


Debate Round No. 2
Apolitical

Pro

Ok I know you're getting a little upset here so lets take a deep breath and calm down a little... It's very easy to get flustered when things aren't going your way.

I can actually show private ownership of cannons as proven by a letter of marque from President Madison during the war of 1812. The owner of the ship was allowed to own cannons for his private vessel. Does that open the case back up again? Probably not in your mind I'm sure because you only use "logic and undeniable facts." Which translates to your feelings and conjectures.
http://www.1812privateers.org...

You do realize that during the Revolutionary war all the militia men were armed with the most current weapons of their time correct? Or did they just have bows and arrows since the Founding Fathers didn't want them to have any military technology of the times? It seems that if there was a need for rebellion against the government you would want to be armed in a way that would make fighting against the government effective... Which I will remind you has already happened twice in our countries history. Do you actually want to know what the Founding Fathers thought of the Second Amendment? Or do you just want to continue pretending that you're inside the minds of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Here are some quotes for you to help you in your spiritual journey to understanding:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

This last one is my favorite and I promise there are plenty more if you would take just ten minutes and read about history a little bit. The point of this last quote, I am sure you would say, is that the spirit of the Constitution is to allow every citizen to bear a musket. Since that was the arm of the times. Wouldn't that be the most probable interpretation? So you believe that in the spirit of the Constitution we should ban all weapons other than muskets.

Or maybe we could just use the actual text of the Second Amendment and the spirit of the debate at that time (which I am sure you will concede was about rebelling against tyrannical government, since it had just been done, and not hunting) and not try and read in anything else from your "logical" brain.

Thank you for defining assault weapons, bullets and game fowl for me. That was most kind of you. I understand that you think I am the one inferring things here and you don't realize that it is you. I've tried to help you with that but it doesn't seem to be working. Not once have I attempted to guess at what the Founding Fathers wanted without using the words of the Second Amendment or their direct quotes. You have. If you could find a quote from the Founding Fathers attempting to limit access to weapons for citizens it would change the entire debate.

Your argument boils down to this: "I don't think the Founding Fathers would want us to have "assault" weapons because they are too dangerous." With no facts to back up this claim it is just you trying to backdate your own views on what long dead people clearly did not say or intend.

If you want to have a pragmatic discussion about whether it is practical for individuals to own such weapons considering the risk that is fine. Just realize two things. One, your view is not consistent with the Constitution or any writings of the Founding Fathers. Two, you have no principles and you will lose all your gun rights piece by piece. An argument like yours for the safety of the people can just as easily be applied to handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. After all the third deadliest shooting in the country at Virginia Tech was carried out with pistols. 33 people died. Why not ban those next? Are they not dangerous enough for you? In fact the massive majority of casualties in the United States are cause by handguns. If we really wanted to protect our citizens we would ban those right?

The Founding Fathers did want us to have weapons of mass killing in the hands of the common man. 24,000 British soldiers were killed at the hands of the common man during the Revolutionary War with weapons of "mass killing." These were militia men with their own private weapons, not professionals for the most part. It's hard to believe you can quote the Second Amendment which clearly says keep and bear arms right next to "shall not be infringed" and then in the next sentence make an argument that it should be infringed. A good word for you would be "unhinged." No one owned a cannon for their home defense. That would be impractical. The point is not home defense as I've had to remind you fifty times already. People who owned arms during the writing of the Constitution were allowed the exact same armaments that were used by the tiny amount of professional soldiers the United States possessed at that time. Apply the principle today! Except you want to apply a different principle which is fine. Just don't pretend the Second Amendment backs you up while you piss all over it.

It is very easy for anyone reading this to recognize that what you have stated here is completely lacking in any factual evidence or references to anything relevant and is instead the moral rantings and ravings of someone who has not quite thought through this. All you have to say is that my view is not reasonable, not mature, irrational, has no basis in reality, is indefensible, etc... These are not arguments. Your "Think of the children" stance has been used by anti-gun advocates since the dawn of time to attempt to abolish gun ownership in all forms. Go ahead and hand your rights over to the government in return for some temporary safety but don't ask me to do the same.

Thank you for your time I have definitely enjoyed this.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Hahaha; I"m sorry, I forget that the population at large are unfamiliar with maturer Christians, and run almost exclusively into the denomination version of Christians, whch are the lowest FORM of Christian Believers.

Ephesians 6:9 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel

2 Corinthians 3:12
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

2 Corinthians 6:11
We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians. Our hearts are open wide.

These and other scriptures move me forward in all manners of speech. That is to say I am guided by God alone, and contrary to your assumption I personally have no OPINION whatever, but speak what IS evident and true! That you presume otherwise is not my concern. As opinions ... yours mine and ours are less than useless, in that they are no indicators of truth at all, merely opinions.

This debate was merely my idea of a break from my original debates, on Heaven, Hell, Blessings and Curses! The point of our debate for example? Your entire point is based on FALSE INFORMATION which is WHY you haven"t ANY FACTS whatever! Everything you have said is not factual at all, merely popular opinions and not good opinions at that. More like immature viewpoints completely without basis in facts!

Where as the entire debate from MY VIEWPOINT is based SOLELY ON FACTS, DATA, STATISTICS! I have not put forth ANY OPINIONS as I have none!

Read back over my statements for yourself. No opinions, just simple FACTS based completely on STATISTICAL DATA. Unlike you I have INFERRED NOTHING, while YOU have nothing but inference!

You infer on the Second Amendment ... when it clearly does not state Civil possession of WEAPONS OF WAR! It simply states bearing arms? As I have no opinion nor is it my right to infer (a practice adopted from Biblical teachings-IF it doesn"t say it we MUST NOT INFER IT DOES, that is ADDING to the word which is expressly forbidden, and the root cause of the formation of Denominations).

The statistical data presented - gives absolute PROOF that there IS NO GUN PROBLEM in the United States at all, with gun violence at less than 0.01%

The topic of gun control therefore is a matter of overstimulated population whose motives are purely of an emptional fervor, as the evidence does not warrant such panic. Not withstanding, the gun control issue is one of complete fabrication of the masses. One opinion is you can own any Weapon of any kind, and the other is that you can own only a limited amount!

The facts support the opposition I"m afraid, as your statement REQUIRES ADDING to the text! The text STATES RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, not right to bear Weapons of War! Further your.... evidence? Absolutely useless as evidence goes!

Evidence: Census dated 1790 places the POPULATION at 3,929,214 Million souls ...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
that a SINGLE digit SOULS was in possession of a Canon, is an act of pitifully desperation nothing more. That you live in a self inflicted state of the Sky falling is a personal detriment without basis in fact nor reality, as the OTHER IDEAS, as one commenter pointed out demonstrates far greater threats, like Cancer, Physical Abuse, and Automobile Deaths that in reality are Hemispheres higher than your purely imaginary terror, thus leaving you completely unaware of your REALITIES, meaning only when you get Cancer, get Beaten or see that Car about to RELIEVE YOU of your LIFE will you THEN become AWARE of the realities of Life and Death, course NONE of that will matter to you in Hell. And that to is a fact! Death and Hell are but a breath/Heartbeat away .... yet owning an Uzi is what matters most to you?

Well this has been brief but refreshing respite from declaring the horrors of Hell to the unsaved of the World, which sadly IS THE MAJORITY OF YOU. But as I have pointed out the choice is yours? Feel free to read my debates, of which I never win, but, that"s because your voting emotionally and have no interest in knowing the truth! Still, my hopes that some, even one of you readers will check out my debates on your future residency in HELL and determine it IS NOT where you desire to go.
I thank you for the break Pro. I "ll pray for you.
Good day to you.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lizardsex 3 years ago
lizardsex
my a$$ hurts because of this argument.
Posted by Apolitical 3 years ago
Apolitical
You have a good one buddy. I am a bit worried about your anger issues but I hope you find the light... Thanks for being a good sport for the most part. I enjoyed it immensely.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
So in a nutshell, be quiet and let every one reading form their own conclusions , and quit LYING to support your warped imagination!

I at this point AM the only one providing ACTUAL EVIDENCE .... pro has presented NONE, merely opinion. Though they MAY BE the popular opinion, they are STILL IN ERRR as no evidence exist to support ANY of pro's assertions that The 2nd Amendment GIVES right to own WEAPONS OF WAR!

It does not, and any statement to the contrary -MUST BE INFERRED!

Scripture involvement is just the facts Kid! Scripture for example MUST be taken AS IS- one can NEVER infer a thing ... it either says it or it does not! there is no maybe!

Hey; YOU shot your mouth off and completely different topics ... civility, structure other ideas!

I returned in kind off topic, except MINE are TRUE! If your not saved, Hell exists! Best YOU get yourself into a church and decide whose side your gonna be on ... the Worlds which IS gonna LOSE, or on Gods side! Hell is not a place anyone WANTS to go too? So get OFF this Debate Board and go to church and FIND God while He may yet be found. Gun Control ... is NOT gonna BE YOUR PROBLEM!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
sp_550;
That Men may know you a Liar, I present the evidence an charge against you:

sp_550 attempting to TAINT evidence in favor of PRO, by deception and LIES!

sp_550 states-The lack of civility and structure Con gives here is quite surprising to say the least.

FACT: Structure is based upon evidentiary examples that clearly support a conclusion!
Evidence in support :
Lobby strength to sway Congressional opinion-example given LGBT 4% of the nation by Lobby swayed congress over 96% of the country, though they were clearly the minority!

this supports WHY the Liberals ARE winning- through greater lobbing efforts being presented to congress! (this has NOTHING to do with Civility? but evidence of a factual nature)

sp_550-take a normal debate on gun control and liberalism and warp it to your advantage by including other ideas.

Evidence demonstrating sp_550 LIES to alter opinion:
Number of School Shootings this year = 17
Total number of schools=143,850 schools?
True percentage of schools effected = 0.01 percent of the US schools.
15,549 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2017
True population of the United States as of 2017= 325.7 MILLION
True percentage of schools effected = 0.01 percent

This supports the conclusion that THERE IS NO GUN PROBLEM, the debate is on ownership of Military style weapons which is "not" a RIGHT given by the 2nd Amendment.

In 2014: 926,200 abortions were performed Killed legally.
True percentage of schools effected0.28%
True statistics 5.3 million incidents of domestic violence
-595,690 people will die from the disease.

These demonstrate the serious lack of proper concern towards statistics which effect a GREATER portion of SOCIETY, resulting in DEATH that statistically is FAR GREATER thus of MORE concern as a Society but at present is being ignored for A PROBLEM that does not AS YET EXIST!

But junior here- has crapped all over the evidence by IMPLYING- other ideas? FACTS is what they are!
Posted by sp_550 3 years ago
sp_550
Con, you really seem to be missing my point here - what I had mentioned in my comment earlier was that your argument was unstructured and all over the place since you decide to take a normal debate on gun control and liberalism and warp it to your advantage by including other ideas.

It's amazing how what you commented really just proved my point. :)

This debate is on gun control, Con. Not my stance on LGBT inclusion. Not on transgender people. My comment earlier was about the debate itself - you then decide to target me by saying that I'm going to hell and then you go on a tirade about my going to hell and your idea that since your "definition" of LGBT matches the definition of perversion, that I don't "have a moral fiber".

And the idea that I'm an "undercover Christian" should and does not matter at all. It does not matter who or what I may be, whether I am a conservative business owner, a liberal teacher, a progressive student, or otherwise. What matters is my stance on the arguments that were made, and now your targeting of me. There was absolutely no point in you posting a scripture about my supposed going to hell once I die because this is not a religion debate. It's a political one.

Again, my stance on "perversion", or LGBT/trans persons, does not matter. I could be against it for all this debate would care. I only brought the topic up in my earlier comment because you had mentioned it, Con, and I mentioned the pointlessness of having that viewpoint on a topic of this sort. You decided to take what I said and turn it on me and say that I'm going to hell.

I'm sure that in an actual debate environment (like IQ2US), no one would listen to someone who takes their religious views, mixes them with their politics, and creates a mess of repetitive claims and arguments that have nothing to do with the motion at all.

Save the preaching for the religion section of the site. Religion does not matter in politics, so don't mix it with a political argumen
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
I'm sorry I totally forgot to give you the scripture of your futures:
Revelation 14:10
10 he too will drink the wine of God"s anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever. Day and night there will be no rest for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.""

and the ever popular Mark 16:15
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Notice anything in the above statement?
It doesn't say prove anything to you!

It says if you Believe and are baptised you'll be saved ... if you DON'T believe ... continue to Hell!

by the way you DO know that ypu were assigned to HELL from Birth right? I mean it isn't God sending you there you know this right? See cause Adam is the one who sends us to Hell from Birth. says so right here: Romans 5:12
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

and whose all men? Yeah YOU?
Course the GOOD NEWS IS:
Romans 5:18
Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.

Yep you can be saved By Jesus Christ and not have to go to Hell ... but that's up to you.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
hehehe
VOTES? your not serious are you? Pffft, of what use are votes? They neither indicate right nor wrong, they are based on popularity, and emotional outburst like the Cowardly lion down there. Why on earth should I concern myself with who wins?

I speak truth and truth alone ... I haven't the slightest concern whether the stupid (again the condition not the insult) (Atheists) of the world agree, their going to Hell anyway.

Check it out ... Believers have TOLD THEM that Hell and God is REAL ... but do they even bother to look? Nope. Just gonna find out when they get there. I mean your parents told you that stove was hot and it didn't take you putting your hand on it to find out ... but Hell? Nope gonna go there to find out with the FULL KNOWLEDGE mind you that your THERE 4-ever!

Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed are you? Kinda puts to rest any attempts of you CLAIMING intelligence on any level huh? hehehe
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
sp_550 ;
Civility? When did the allowance of PERVERSION become being civil? That you have not the courage to speak truth but cower in the corner, prepared to sacrifice your first born rather than be confrontational, is your cowardice, and your shame. Need proof no doubt.

here: You can have surgery to make you a Female or a Male ... question on autopsy will your DNA reveal a female or male?

Right whatever you were hatched is precisely what your DNA will reveal. so that Surgery turned you into a novelty nothing more! You Lived life as a Placebo! A sex toy! A Feminized Male, a masculine Female! You see my blind and stupid (The condition not the insult- having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.) friend ... the mature folks who have intelligence know, that male skeleton and Female skeleton is not interchangeable, neither are your Chromosomes ... the xx and xy remain the same ... so YOU REMAIN A FEMALE TILL DEATH or MALE TILL DEATH ... just a sextoy of course.

Perversion means -The alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

hehehe thats's EXACTLY THE DEFINITION OF LGBT isn't it? That's okay I understand you are without moral fiber, bereft of reason and ability to reason in a world of responsible adults. Enjoy your Life, because HELL awaits you immediately upon your death. Unless of course your saved. But judging by YOUR Words .... you would HAVE to be one of those undercover Christians, pointless useless, but saved by grace!
Posted by Apolitical 3 years ago
Apolitical
Well thank you sp_550. The part on LGBT, sex with animals and pedophilia threw me for a bit of a loop. Glad I am not the only one...
Posted by sp_550 3 years ago
sp_550
To finish (and add a bit to) my previous comment, which was cut off despite it having an allowed number of characters-

This is preemptive, but obvious in my eyes - pro is set to win this debate, not only because it is logical, but because it is structured and does not branch out into other topics like Con for the sake of argument. And also, the very unethical view that Con brings to the table in terms of relating the issue to abortion, LGBT laws, and statistics worries me, especially with a username like that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.