You don't know what you're talking about.

Saying a religious person is hardly the standard-bearer for separating emotion and argument is hilarious considering the other side of his positions think there's a endless number of genders and that's there's no physical differences between women and men.

Ben is very good at debating hence why lefties resort to ad hominem like calling him a nazi. He's plenty rational on guns. He uses actual data to back up his positions instead of relying on emotional arguments with nothing backing it.

He hates Trump and doesn't give him any passes. He does like a good bit of Trump's policies though. 

David would learn how to be rational from Ben and how to debate with facts.

I never said anyone was right because they won. Not sure where you're getting that from. I said both sides had fair points and that it was fair game, though Ingraham felt the most impact. Ingraham clearly went looking for a conflict, but she just didn't expect to lose. That does not at all equate to sanctioning bullying and mental and social torture.

He provided an avenue (calling her sponsors) for people that disliked her course of action (making an unprovoked personal attack against a 17 year old mass-shooting survivor, which is bound to attract negative public attention, because when you think about it, that's a pretty twisted thing to do) to make their voices heard. It seems to me like she hurt herself professionally.

To me it's irrelevant wether he's a high school student or not. His actions should be judged based on their own merits, not based on how old he is, and I don't see anything wrong with his actions in this case.

Hey now... Russian bots are supporting Ingraham. So there is that.

Dont worry, the adults in the room will win in the end. They wont change a damn thing about gun laws that matters, so in a few weeks Hoggs can go back to class having achieved nothing but 15 minutes of fame.

Guess what?  Republicans are about to get routed in 2018 elections.  These school students from Florida pushed the gun debate more than anyone else has in the past 2 decades since school shootings have become the norm. Republicans would get routed anyways without the school shooting incidents.  Face the facts.  Republican party is a dying breed.  Maybe republicans should think twice about getting rid of the endangered species list because they are about to find their asses on it.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Dude, I'm independent and voted for Bernie, so why you yelling at me? I voted Bernie until he lost and then Trump as better alternative to Hillary. Nonetheless, you can route the repubs all you want, the democrats get bribed too, so you arent going to see any major change, just like you didnt under Obama or Clinton.

Well at least Obama and Clinton don't come off as idiots no matter what back pedaling or false promises they made during the campaign trail.  I'd rather have a decently smart person in charge than some idiot and every single republican candidate/politician I see is an idiot.  By the way...  I don't like Democrats either but I for sure will vote for them over shitty republicans.

You don't think that the fact that the overall rate of gun violence in the UK is vastly smaller than that in the US makes your link seem a little pointless? Are you saying that the UK has enacted some new gun laws that are the cause of this increase? Because the UK has a long was to go before the catch up with the US and the argument is that tighter gun laws is the reason they're that low in the first place. A one year increase does little to fight that argument. 

Hogg didn't really accomplish anything in the context of advancing the gun control vs 2nd amendment debate. All he did was gather his followers to convince Ingraham's sponsors to pull financial support in response to her mocking of his whining. Okay, great. How does that have to do with the debate surrounding gun control and the right to bear arms? How did his actions contribute to the topic? None, if not very little, if you ask me.

There's a common saying on the Internet that goes by "Don't feed the trolls". He also had the ample opportunity to take the high ground and go something like, "Hey, Laura. How about we drop the personal attacks and stick to the debate about gun control?" However, he didn't, which hurts his image.

"You don't think that the fact that the overall rate of gun violence in the UK is vastly smaller than that in the US makes your link seem a little pointless?"

ah yes, because guns are the only way people harm each other of course

"Are you saying that the UK has enacted some new gun laws that are the cause of this increase?"

no, they like the chinese primarily use knives instead

also something being illegal does not stop people from possessing it

weed is illegal right? how many people do you know that have experimented with weed?

"Because the UK has a long was to go before the catch up with the US"

with regards to gun violence yes and that's some consolation i suppose for those who have been stabbed to death

 if those people had been armed they could have shot their attackers to death

"the argument is that tighter gun laws is the reason they're that low in the first place. A one year increase does little to fight that argument. "

as far as i know the uk is not that far off from the us with regards to violent crime

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

and its not just a one year increase... its been a steady rise over years... and i'm referring to the period after this analysis was done

i suppose where i differ is that to me i don't really care too much about the tools used too cause violent crime but about the deaths and injuries