Lisnpuppy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 *cough* To nobody in particular...Are we debating guns? Or are we debating how to debate? Cause I am pretty sure I saw a threat about that stuff. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) @ Lisnpuppy: Frankly, by debating who debates better, apparently, decides who's 'right'. It's an opinion in the end, guys, I really don't understand why a lawyer (if you take her word) would fight so adamantly on the web when more serious matters are in hand in their present reality. @ Ginny: Being a lawyer has no direct relevancy here: this is, after all, an open debate, open to everyone. Waving your occupation around like a stick is not going to end well here. Edited February 7, 2012 by dazzerfong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 @ Lisnpuppy: Frankly, by debating who debates better, apparently, decides who's 'right'. It's an opinion in the end, guys, I really don't understand why a lawyer (if you take her word) would fight so adamantly on the web when more serious matters are in hand in their present reality. @ Ginny: Being a lawyer has no direct relevancy here: this is, after all, an open debate, open to everyone. Waving your occupation around like a stick is not going to end well here. Let me do the nose smacking around here, if you will~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I really don't understand why a lawyer (if you take her word) would fight so adamantly on the web when more serious matters are in hand in their present reality. Just for the record, I actually know Ginnyfizz in the real world, she is a lawyer, and the only one here with actual credentials to debate the legal validity and weight of precedent with any real world experience, unlike the rest of us including me. Semantics and sentence diagramming is what is really being debated here not the actual facts on the ground as they really are. Some have refuted the validity of the real Supreme Court in favor of their private views, others have used historical arguments to cite when which faction started first, others have debated debating ( a truly droll concept considering no ones minds has changed an iota) and lastly I have debated the facts as they actually are ( not what they should be, just what they are). That I am in favor of the civilian fight to bear arms I freely admit. So my dear sophists, semanticists and just plain obdurate debaters... unless or until the SC rules differently the civilian right 'to bear arms' is the current constitutional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You can type till your fingers go numb but it won't change reality one little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 To understand why and how actual "proper debate" can illuminate the winning argument perhaps you should spend time slogging through this. Even if you don't like it, it's good for you. I have not seen much actual debate around here. This is like the Keystone Cops debate forum, in my humble opinion. The Supreme Court tends to go with the argument that is most politically expedient. That's not my opinion, that is an assessment of the facts. No decision has ever been "truly decided" by the Supreme Court because whoever is on the bench at any given time on the Supreme Court may take up an argument again depending on whether it is politic. And calling on a higher authority to win a debate is lame not winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFourthHorse Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I really don't understand why a lawyer (if you take her word) would fight so adamantly on the web when more serious matters are in hand in their present reality. Just for the record, I actually know Ginnyfizz in the real world, she is a lawyer, and the only one here with actual credentials to debate the legal validity and weight of precedent with any real world experience, unlike the rest of us including me. Let's all remember this is an open forum. We are not here to judge one another's qualifications on any given subject and any experience we may have, does not (alone) grant us the ability to refute each other's arguments. We may have the right to speak our minds but we should not have to take this to a personal level, no matter how personal the topic maybe to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 And calling on a higher authority to win a debate is lame not winning. This debate settles nothing since there is no 'winning' of it, no one has changed sides, no one has conceded a damn thing. The amusing thing is that cherry picking of history is valid, line parsing is valid but referring to the Highest Court in the land is 'lame'...more like sour grapes. A remedial read of the Constitution might be in order since that is the job of the Court..to interpret the constitutionality of laws enacted. There is no ambiguity in the constitution about the function of the Supreme Court, that you do not approve of it's rulings is moot. All eligible citizens of the US can own and bear arms, so all the breast beating, pontificating, line parsing, history quoting won't affect the actual reality of the situation. If it will make you happy, in your own little illusory reality you are the winner, but in the real world ( where I exist) we can and do have the right to own guns which is the only really relevant fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 This debate settles nothing since there is no 'winning' of it, no one has changed sides, no one has conceded a damn thing. I've maintained this same stance since day one in these debate forums. (In fact since long before I found this one.) I haven't followed this particular debate since I said I was leaving it, somehow I got re-subscribed in time for Lisn's latest post. So, I haven't got a clue "who" is technically winning the debate. I do know the rules of debate, even though I myself do not care to be a great debater. Appealing to a higher authority proves nothing. In a debate, the most persuasive logical argument wins. Last I looked this debate was not whether the law allows gun ownership in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 This debate settles nothing since there is no 'winning' of it, no one has changed sides, no one has conceded a damn thing. I've maintained this same stance since day one in these debate forums. (In fact since long before I found this one.) I haven't followed this particular debate since I said I was leaving it, somehow I got re-subscribed in time for Lisn's latest post. So, I haven't got a clue "who" is technically winning the debate. I do know the rules of debate, even though I myself do not care to be a great debater. Appealing to a higher authority proves nothing. In a debate, the most persuasive logical argument wins. Last I looked this debate was not whether the law allows gun ownership in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallaciesIn the first post he specifically mentions the legality of guns though.. Also @AurieliusWhat is "cherry picking of history" supposed to mean? He quoted documents from the past that are not as well know as the documents you know. That is not cherry picking history, that is just bring up new texts you were not aware of. Also if you claim it is the job of the court to decide laws, why are you here? This is largely a debate on if the laws are correct or not. We are debating the laws that were decided by the court. If you are going to just say you think the court is right and not make your own arguments for it, there is no point in even taking part in the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 To understand why and how actual "proper debate" can illuminate the winning argument perhaps you should spend time slogging through this. Even if you don't like it, it's good for you. I have not seen much actual debate around here. This is like the Keystone Cops debate forum, in my humble opinion. The Supreme Court tends to go with the argument that is most politically expedient. That's not my opinion, that is an assessment of the facts. No decision has ever been "truly decided" by the Supreme Court because whoever is on the bench at any given time on the Supreme Court may take up an argument again depending on whether it is politic. And calling on a higher authority to win a debate is lame not winning.Eh... close, I guess. But it's really more like marhath's line. Me, I would've gone straight for "activist judges" and not even bothered with hinting at a moral absolute. Let me tell you a story: Once I wrote a five-page term paper in Spanish, despite knowing almost no Spanish. And immediately afterward, I was made to rewrite a literary passage from one author in another author's style. I :dance: NAILED IT :dance: since really, they were the same damn thing. To credibly impersonate someone, you must basically re-learn grammar. You must take your thoughts and arrange them into sentence structures that the other person uses. Everything else just falls into place. Also, you're no fun. There I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts