Niftydrifty’s second rebuttal, Part 4 of 4 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter Indeed, it has not been demonstrated by my opponent that anyone- but- my opponent agrees with my position, a tactic he is using in an attempt to avoid actually arguing against me. |
I have not been arguing against M14 Shooter? Actually, I have been, just not in the way he would prefer or in the way that he anticipated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter Quote: |
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd. | This is yet another strawman. |
cue the laugh track again.
M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”
M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter However, it has indeed been shown that the major anti-gun organizations do not agree with the argument that the 2nd protects an individual right to own any gun whatsoever, much less any modern firearm, and it has also been shown that while certain anti-gun parties may agree that the 2nd protects the right to own a gun of some sort, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to own all modern firearms. |
Anecdotal evidence. Lobbying or advocacy groups tend to be more extreme than most people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter Quote: |
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless | One must wonder what my opponent will say now that the evidence has been produced. |
Now you know. One must wonder what M14 Shooter will say now that he has been taught what an anecdotal evidence fallacy is. One must wonder if M14 Shooter will be able to now produce evidence demonstrating that most of any section of the population believe anything, or if he will shrug it off or misunderstand it completely, as he has with nearly everything else.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter And until my opponent actually attempts to counter my argument, as he agreed that he would do, he is still, by his own words, a ‘coward’. |
LOL, more name calling. He repeats the misunderstanding again, the part where he confuses “Liberalism,” with something counter to his argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter Quote: |
Originally Posted by niftydrifty M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim | My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument. |
6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”
M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter So, to summarize:
• My opponent, in that he refuses to argue against the position I took, as he said he would do in the challenge he put to me, is, by his own standard, a coward. |
demolished.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter • My opponent, in that he moved away from trying to argue against my position, as he said he would when he issued his challenge, and tried to argue various issues unrelated to my position, is guilty of trying to change the subject away from an argument he knows he cannot support. He is, indeed, running away. |
demolished.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter • My opponent’s assertions that “the "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment” has been demonstrated to be patently false by showing that while some of them may indeed recognize the 2nd amendment, their desire to ban certain guns necessitates that they do not believe the 2nd covers the guns they want to ban. |
I said that, but I also said, “the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left."
demolished.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter • My opponent argues that there is broad correlation between Republicans and Democrats and Liberals and Conservatives regarding gun control, but he offers no specific evidence to this end, especially that which shows a correlation between Republicans/Conservatives and the Democrat/liberal people and organizations that I cited. |
I argued that there is a “broad correlation” by providing “broad evidence.” Specific evidence would not demonstrate a broad correlation. Three people do not represent Liberalism. M14 Shooter either does not understand poll methodology, or he is simply frustrated that no poll in existence denies my claims. So he harps on specific examples. And calls me names. Specific examples are anecdotal and do not demonstrate a “broad correlation.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter • My opponent, not having any position of his own to stand on, finds the need to create straw men that he can knock down, even going so far that as to claim that I am “wrong” about a position that I did not take. |
My position is to argue on behalf of Liberalism, just as I agreed to. M14 Shooter’s alleged “strawman position that he did not take” is there for all to see: it’s the first paragraph in his first post.
M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Ouch.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter In conclusion, its clear that my opponent cannot argue against my position, and cannot support the arguments he made when he tried to change the subject in order to cover for the fact that he could not argue against my position |
When you have no case, just simply repeat the same falsehoods over and over. Maybe someone will be gullible enough to believe it.
Summary
M14 Shooter:
• has mistakenly assumed that an argument on behalf of Liberalism would be an argument counter to anything he could think of.
• does not know what an appeal to popularity is.
• has misrepresented the gun debate in this country
• did not know that there is not a correlation between political ideology and the “sides” in the national gun debate
• has wrongly drawn a parallel between a debate about firearms covered by the second amendment and about weapons covered by the second amendment. Nukes are not firearms.
• does not know that anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
• did not remember that he made claims about the anti-gun side of the gun debate, and therefore feels that he does not have to substantiate those claims.