• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

Is it appropriate to demand proof or facts on Debate Politics?

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
this isn't HS Debate with a trophy. its about your proof that the other clauses support your claim and btw there is no evidence the CC was intended by the founders as a grant of gun control. can you find ANY EVIDENCE the founders wanted the CC to be so used
Click to expand...

Yes, the US Constitution itself.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Can you explain what this means and what it has to do with a scientific proof that natural rights exist?

We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others".
Click to expand...
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Yes, the US Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

that requires us to accept your interpretation. that is not a proof nor a fact
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
that requires us to accept your interpretation. that is not a proof nor a fact
Click to expand...

As I have said repeatedly, I do not care who here accepts or rejects my view. The Supreme COurt has accepted Article I Section 8 in the area of firearms regulation and that is all that counts.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Can you explain what this means and what it has to do with a scientific proof that natural rights exist?
Click to expand...

Sure, for the audience.

The survey conducted can be repeated any number of times with any number of samples and the results are always the same. Humans, as a result of empathy, create these social objects universally. This proves that the social object is natural, that is - not dependent upon authority, the result of natural social relations.

We don't need an authority to confirm this, we are aware of natural rights as a matter of being human, it is inalienable from the species. Natural rights exist, even if they are not observed by, or are violated by, authority. Of course, natural rights can be violated justly, not only unjustly.

It's important that we remember: inalienable does not equal inviolable. It means inseparable from humanity, not from an individual.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
As I have said repeatedly, I do not care who here accepts or rejects my view. The Supreme COurt has accepted Article I Section 8 in the area of firearms regulation and that is all that counts.
Click to expand...

and how that does that prove what the founders intended? you have claimed that the founders clearly intended federal gun control
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Sure, for the audience.

The survey conducted can be repeated any number of times with any number of samples and the results are always the same. Humans, as a result of empathy, create these natural social objects universally. This proves that the social object is natural, that is - not dependent upon authority, the result of natural social relations.
Click to expand...

You did not explain your question. your question is nonsense.

"would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others".
Click to expand...

What does the first part mean and what are you asking the person to give up?

What does the second part mean and what is the person suppose to be taking away from all others?

And what does the first part have to do with the second part?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
and how that does that prove what the founders intended? you have claimed that the founders clearly intended federal gun control
Click to expand...

Do you want a different answer than the one you have been given many many times and have rejected it many many times?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Do you want a different answer than the one you have been given many many times and have rejected it many many times?
Click to expand...

I'd like some actual proof and some actual facts
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
I'd like some actual proof and some actual facts
Click to expand...

Different from the previous proof and facts you have been repeatedly given and facts that you have repeatedly rejected?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
What does the first part mean and what are you asking the person to give up?
Click to expand...

You don't know what the right to life means? Wow. Well, now it's a bit more obvious why you are confused. Again, for the audience:

The right to life is the right to choose whether to live or die. Someone that sacrifices themself for others, for example on a battlefield, has exercised their right to life even as they choose to die.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Different from the previous proof and facts you have been repeatedly given and facts that you have repeatedly rejected?
Click to expand...

When everyone rejects it because there is no logical foundation, it doesn't count as proof. Again we are in CT Land, where the person screams over and over that the planes were holograms and that they have provided proof.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
You don't know what the right to life means? Wow. Well, now it's a bit more obvious why you are confused. Again, for the audience:

The right to life is the right to choose whether to live or die. Someone that sacrifices themself for others, for example on a battlefield, has exercised their right to life even as they choose to die.
Click to expand...

Life is something you simply have because you are born. IT is not a right. So the way your question reads, you are asking a person to give up their life.

then there is your second half of your question

would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others".
Click to expand...

So you have no right over other lives so you are asking if I can take away their lives of everyone else. Killing the entire population would be everyone else.

So what you question says is would you give up your own life to take everybody elses life. And that is sheer nonsense which makes no sense.

And I have no idea how that sort of nonsense question is suppose to prove that natural rights exist outside of a belief system.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
When everyone rejects it because there is no logical foundation, it doesn't count as proof.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE!?!?!?!?!? Who exactly is EVERYONE??????
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Life is something you simply have because you are born. IT is not a right. So the way your question reads, you are asking a person to give up their life.
Click to expand...

really?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Life is something you simply have because you are born. IT is not a right. So the way your question reads, you are asking a person to give up their life.
Click to expand...

Didn't I just explain that the right is to choose?


haymarket said:
EVERYONE!?!?!?!?!? Who exactly is EVERYONE??????
Click to expand...

No need to scream. Everyone means everyone. If you can find someone that supports your wacky CT narrative, produce them. Otherwise, you're completely alone on a board of hundreds or thousands of people. Even the mild Truthers have more support.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Didn't I just explain that the right is to choose?
Click to expand...

Your question does not say that and it took you a couple of days to come up with that different explanation. The fault seems to be in the way you wrote your question.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Your question does not say that and it took you a couple of days to come up with that different explaination.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure everyone else understood it immediately. You're the only person that didn't get it and needed someone to explain what the right to life means.

Would you like for me to explain the Constitution? I mean, as long as things are coming to light... might as well take a shot?


haymarket said:
Again, I could not care less about what a couple of people think.
Click to expand...

Typical CTism, pretending that only those directly engaged are appalled despite a complete lack of support. So sad.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Again, I could not care less about what a couple of people think.
Click to expand...

but when you claim that those clauses clearly and plainly demonstrate a delegation of gun control power to the federal government and not another person see that , it suggests that your argument is lacking in support
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
but when you claim that those clauses clearly and plainly demonstrate a delegation of gun control power to the federal government and not another person see that , it suggests that your argument is lacking in support
Click to expand...

Everyone and not another person are a couple of people in these threads whose mind on the topic of guns was long long long ago made up against anything I would say about the topic regardless of evidence or proof or argument.

So with that in mind, I could not care less what they might think. You are more than welcome to the support of those couple of people in these threads.

The US Supreme Court supports that Article I Section 8 can be used to regulate firearms. And with them on the side of my position - that is a winning hand against your position.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Everyone and not another person are a couple of people in these threads whose mind on the topic of guns was long long long ago made up against anything I would say about the topic regardless of evidence or proof or argument.

So with that in mind, I could not care less what they might think.
Click to expand...

Dude, we're not against you personally. This is a debate website. Let's not slip into a persecution complex to escape from criticism of a CT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom