Wow. I actually didn't expect to be attacked like that by you Zen. Surprising.
"When you refer to your opinion as a fact, you lose all credibility when debating with me, or any intelligent debater. Instead of listening to my words, your examining them to present your retort, and you fail to grasp the concept of what is being said. "Poor" is a descriptive term indicating opinion. While it can be a fact that the majority of opinions consider a debating technique "poor" it is not a fact that said technique is "poor" that is still only an opinion."
Alright, I'll admit I should have said 'I still believe that it is poor debating' and that I mis-stated it. Sorry about
But I understand entirely what you're saying and think it is foolish to claim that the USA banning guns will lead to them banning alcohol, cigs and cars, I think you were only aiming for shock effect in claiming so. With the tiny made up anecdotes that you used that I also criticised, once again you were using them only for effect not to examine the justice or morality of the debate.
"To debate you I need only say this. I conceed that the numbers are probably in your favor(though you nor I can prove such a thing as all numbers presented in this topic are bullshit). However, I contend that life and death aren't the sole factors in determining law in the United States. Right and wrong, and morality are your opinion. I simply stated an opposing one and you saw fit to attack me with what felt like towards the end, condecending, anti-american sentiment."
Life and death are incredibaly important factors. In this case I can not see how any other factor would matter to be honest. You're arguing that although changing the law would save lives we shouldn't change the law because a 200 year old document says we shouldn't?
What would the world be like if Christians followed all the absurd laws set down by the bible? There would still be stonings and other hideous things.
Also to state that I don't understand Americans isn't anti-American, its merely stating that I don't understand Americans. Although to be fair I am anti-American but thats a whole different matter.
"To pretend that your factual numbers are the only factor of importance in this debate is deceptive and also cherrypicking. That's what's wrong with your argument. It's one dimensional, and wouldn't even hold water in your debate class. I would prefer that your "scathing" comments be directed elsewhere. You can't handle people's disagreements with your opinion, that's fine. Don't pretend that "oh that's an unfair technique in debating" as if it matters in this forum, it sounds like your changing the subject because you can't contradict the things I say with your sheet of numbers."
I see no matter more important in this than life and death. Its not like banning guns actually inconveniences us (before you bring up anything to do with alcohol or cars, cigarettes are a different matter altogether). Calling your arguments 'poor debating' is hardly scathing. I'm not claiming its unfair, you're free to argue however you want. I'm claiming its unconvincing. You're ignoring the fact that I didn't only say they were poor debating them but I actually did rebut both of them, go back and read. First one I rebutted by making it clear that alcohol and cars are not the same as guns and to extrapolate to them is unfounded, second one I rebutted with some heart wrenching made up stories of my own - just to show that anyone can play the bullshit game.
"If your comments weren't so fucking incessant and consistantly inserted in this thread, you would have been marginalized long ago, because they are boring, uninformed, meaningless, and downright mean."
Really? Thats far more mean than anything I have said as far as I can see. I mean accusing me of being boring? ='(
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. A well said quote. Frankly, here is the heart of the matter, and at first it may seem terrible too you:"
That quote was referring to people twisting statistics to say what they want them to say. You agree with me that for this the statistics favour my argument. I don't need to twist them.
"Human life doesn't matter, in this argument, in the circumventing of constitutional law. No matter how many people guns kill, it is still our right to own them, the reasons don't matter. Our only recourse is punishment for offenders of others rights, by use of said guns. Is this morally reprehensible to you? Obviously it is. Doesn't matter. This law isn't based off your morals, its based off the inherant American right to own a gun, no matter what the cost to society, or how "wrong and pointless" your childish arguments portrey the right itself. Government legislation repealing this right is progressive with the realistic human life cost in mind, however that isn't the major consideration, nor a very important one. We can't repeal our basic human rights and liberty determined by our constituation to protect human life, even if you "don't understand what the big deal is with gun ownership.""
See this is where my understanding falls apart and I honestly want it explained. What is the big deal with changing your constitution? It was written 200 years ago under extremely different circumstances, there was a threat of English invasion, the states were all extremely independent and the country was new. There was a reason for the second amendment back then, there isn't any more. Why defend it?
It might be because I come from a country with no legal consitution but I really can't see why a country of people would want to anchor themselves to a document written 200 years ago and refuse to change a law that even you agree is costing lives simply because the law is in that document.
"Speaking of bad debating tactics, never saying "I don't understand" anything, it's fucking 101, now isn't it?"
Well if I don't actually understand something I'll say it. Its not like I'm trying to win a prize here after all.
"Do you win the PC morality argument that "guns kill people and I don't understand why we need them" of course you do. If that's what we're debating, the fact that guns make it easier for people to kill other people, I would be a fool to argue with you.
However, your argument fails to reach past that simple, boring, and unimportant segment of the overall debate, and fails to acknowledge both sides, or even attempt to understand why the issue is so important. It's given with a holier than thou, elitist prick, american foriegn policy is evil, mentality right out of a shitty foriegn documentary, and while it may play well to the sec-progs there in californialand, trust me good sir, to the audience which you are presenting, the average American man or woman, which you obviously have so much, spite, anger, and hatred towards, due to the atrocities our government has comitted(in your mind) you'd get boo'd off the stage. Go preach to the choir."
Wait, where did you get the idea I hate Americans? I have some great American friends, met them all at GYLC and I know that Americans (at least in the part I was in, the North East) are great people. I just happen to not like America for its laws, foreign policy or legal system.
How is the fact that with your current gun laws more people are dying than should be unimportant? Its the single most crucial part of this debate as far as I can see. These are innocent peoples lives, American peoples lives, as an extremely patriotic American shouldn't you be the one arguing to save them? (Hah, I'm going to get shredded for that one =P)
Oh and calling me an 'elitist prick'? Once again, you accuse me of being mean and then stoop way below my level.
