• 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

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780

The Declaration of Rights
The Declaration of Rights protects many individual rights. It opens with a broad statement of individual freedom and equality:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their Lives and Liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The Declaration of Rights guards against excessive governmental power by prohibiting, for example, unreasonable searches and seizures, ex post facto laws, and the public taking of property without just compensation. Protected rights include the right to trial by jury, right to petition the government, and freedom of religious worship.

The Declaration of Rights proclaims that it is the "right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit." Why is this provision included? Because, as Article 29 explains, it is "essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice."

The Declaration of Rights concludes with a clear statement of the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Three independent branches of government are dedicated to one stated purpose: "to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."


wow..look at those natural rights which are recognized!
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780

The Declaration of Rights
The Declaration of Rights protects many individual rights. It opens with a broad statement of individual freedom and equality:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their Lives and Liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The Declaration of Rights guards against excessive governmental power by prohibiting, for example, unreasonable searches and seizures, ex post facto laws, and the public taking of property without just compensation. Protected rights include the right to trial by jury, right to petition the government, and freedom of religious worship.

The Declaration of Rights proclaims that it is the "right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit." Why is this provision included? Because, as Article 29 explains, it is "essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice."

The Declaration of Rights concludes with a clear statement of the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Three independent branches of government are dedicated to one stated purpose: "to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."


wow..look at those natural rights which are recognized!

and claiming the founders "lied" when they said all men has absolutely ZERO to do with their view of the rights that they-white free males-wanted to protect for WHITE FREE MALES

it is diversionary to claim that the right is different when in reality the only issue is WHO it applies to
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I have asked you at least three times if you claim that the founders did to want to guarantee the very rights they believed applied to THEM (not blacks, not European, not martians or Klingons)

AND YOU continue to divert and evade

why is that? I know-its because the answer destroys your silly argument that the founders really did not intend to protect natural rights

Your statement that blacks were not considered as men is a outright and complete falsehood and you have presented not one shred of evidence to support such a disgusting claim. In fact, I have presented evidence from Jefferson which says the opposite.


The idea that one would say ALL MEN have these rights and then the same people would pretend that only a certain class and race of people is entitled to them is so despicable, so disgusting , so completely abhorrent to any standard of intellectual integrity that I am shocked you would even present that line of ersatz argument.

Your line of argument only destroys your own credibility Turtle for you are justifying both slavery and the treatment of people as other than human and you seem to relish in it as justification for their own hypocrisy.

And here is more evidence that your claim is an outright falsehood and something you made up without any proof or foundation. Read this from a Jefferson site

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery « Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.

Nothing in there about those lowly darkies being animals or non humans or not men Turtle. Just the opposite.

Your argument has been flushed - and that verb is more than appropriate.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Your statement that blacks were not considered as men is a outright and complete falsehood and you have presented not one shred of evidence to support such a disgusting claim. In fact, I have presented evidence from Jefferson which says the opposite.


The idea that one would say ALL MEN have these rights and then the same people would pretend that only a certain class and race of people is entitled to them is so despicable, so disgusting , so completely abhorrent to any standard of intellectual integrity that I am shocked you would even present that line of ersatz argument.

Your line of argument only destroys your own credibility Turtle for you are justifying both slavery and the treatment of people as other than human and you seem to relish in it as justification for their own hypocrisy.

And here is more evidence that your claim is an outright falsehood and something you made up without any proof or foundation. Read this from a Jefferson site

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery « Thomas Jefferson



Nothing in there about those lowly darkies being animals or non humans or not men Turtle. Just the opposite.

Your argument has been flushed - and that verb is more than appropriate.

more diversion

the issue is not whether Jefferson or other founders lied in the Declaration of Independence

the issue is not the status of slaves

the only issue is the right that the founders intended to recognize and guarantee-a right they planned on exercising themselves

that is the only issue
 
Re: Proof and Facts

and claiming the founders "lied" when they said all men has absolutely ZERO to do with their view of the rights that they-white free males-wanted to protect for WHITE FREE MALES

it is diversionary to claim that the right is different when in reality the only issue is WHO it applies to

the diversion... no check that ... the outright falsehood is yours in inventing new words in the Declaration that are not there. They did not say WHITE FREE MALES had these so called natural rights from their Creator - they said ALL MEN.

Its bad enough that attempt to justify the actions of slave owners and denial of rights that you claim people had to begin with, but to do so by committing the fraud of inventing new language that is not there and ignoring the actual language of ALL MEN - is beyond the pale.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

more diversion

the issue is not whether Jefferson or other founders lied in the Declaration of Independence

the issue is not the status of slaves

the only issue is the right that the founders intended to recognize and guarantee-a right they planned on exercising themselves

that is the only issue

Actually the Declaration is indeed the issue because it is the only place where your sainted Founders as an official group made a specific statement of their belief in natural rights for all men and even named some of them. Take away that and it takes away your whole line that ..... the Founders believed in natural rights.

The other issue being why you would invent language that is not part of the statement - outright lying about what it says while ignoring the actual words which are quite clear.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

the diversion... no check that ... the outright falsehood is yours in inventing new words in the Declaration that are not there. They did not say WHITE FREE MALES had these so called natural rights from their Creator - they said ALL MEN.

Its bad enough that attempt to justify the actions of slave owners and denial of rights that you claim people had to begin with, but to do so by committing the fraud of inventing new language that is not there and ignoring the actual language of ALL MEN - is beyond the pale.

again the declaration of independence is not relevant

the status of slaves is not relevant

your feigned indignation about slavery is even less relevant

your rant about all men is not relevant

the only issue is what right is guaranteed and recognized in the 2A

and all the crap you have spewed has nothing to do with that


you refuse to answer if the founders really intended to limit their own rights

instead you engage in diversionary nonsense about "all men"

that is not relevant

we are talking about the EXTENT OF THE RIGHT not who it covered in 1790, 1795, 1800, 1865 or 1900 or 2014.

and all the diversionary nonsense you have posted has NOTHING TO DO WITH a discussion about the EXTENT of the Second Amendment

and once we have established that the founders certainly believed in that right for themselves, your entire argument is vaporized. and the constant diversion proves that beyond any rational doubt
 
Re: Proof and Facts

again the declaration of independence is not relevant

the status of slaves is not relevant

your feigned indignation about slavery is even less relevant

your rant about all men is not relevant

the only issue is what right is guaranteed and recognized in the 2A

I see. So you just got your entire argument destroyed with me using evidence and exposing your falsehoods so all of the sudden something you have been battling for for hours is no longer relevant.

If it were not such an obvious and blatant concession of surrender it might even be considered as funny - in a sad and rather lonely fashion.

you refuse to answer if the founders really intended to limit their own rights

I have answered it repeatedly and forcefully and clearly.The Founders NEVER talked about rights for only a limited group. They talked about natural rights for ALL MEN and then said they WERE CREATED EQUAL. And we have seen from the citations I produced about Jefferson that your statement that they did not consider Africans as men is a falsehood.

So your statement that they only intended natural rights for themselves is another falsehood.

and once we have established that the founders certainly believed in that right for themselves, your entire argument is vaporized. and the constant diversion proves that beyond any rational doubt

And what we have established is that using the Declaration and using the words of Jefferson himself, they were NOT stating a belief in natural rights only for themselves. So your entire argument now fails right out of the gate.

You can create all the fiction you want about Africans not being men in the Founders eyes , and you can invent all the new language you want to justify slavery, but the reality is that you made both up and have been caught doing so.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777 (1)

WHEREAS, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777 (1)

WHEREAS, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.

statements of fellow true believers in the theory of natural rights does not make them exist outside of a belief system.

It is the constitution which makes rights real.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

deflection

Apparently you are confusing the words DEFLECTION and TRUTH. Statements of belief by other believers do not prove the beliefs exist outside of the belief system. That is simply reality.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I see. So you just got your entire argument destroyed with me using evidence and exposing your falsehoods so all of the sudden something you have been battling for for hours is no longer relevant.

If it were not such an obvious and blatant concession of surrender it might even be considered as funny - in a sad and rather lonely fashion.



I have answered it repeatedly and forcefully and clearly.The Founders NEVER talked about rights for only a limited group. They talked about natural rights for ALL MEN and then said they WERE CREATED EQUAL. And we have seen from the citations I produced about Jefferson that your statement that they did not consider Africans as men is a falsehood.

So your statement that they only intended natural rights for themselves is another falsehood.



And what we have established is that using the Declaration and using the words of Jefferson himself, they were NOT stating a belief in natural rights only for themselves. So your entire argument now fails right out of the gate.

You can create all the fiction you want about Africans not being men in the Founders eyes , and you can invent all the new language you want to justify slavery, but the reality is that you made both up and have been caught doing so.

not relevant. the only issue is the extent of the right and the beliefs of the founders completely deny your claims that the right was set forth to allow "infringements"
 
Re: Proof and Facts

not relevant. the only issue is the extent of the right and the beliefs of the founders completely deny your claims that the right was set forth to allow "infringements"

When you use the defense of NOT RELEVANT it more often than not means you have no way to refute what was said to destroy your position. And that is what has happened to your position over the last several pages. We discovered that your position
1- centers around the so called beliefs of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration,
2 - the Founders did not truly believe the nonsense they professed to believe in
3- effectively rendering the statements of Jefferson and the other signers just so much public relations pap for the gullible and naive
4 - leaving you with nothing except a paddle up the river Denial as you furiously attempt to change course several times only to be drowned yet again

You have nothing left Turtle. All your arguments have been shown to be false and without foundation and it was done using the documents themselves, the actions of the founders themselves, the views of the founders themselves and exposing your own invention of positions you tried to claim they held that were proven false.

And all this in a thread about proof and evidence. And that is entirely appropriate and should be a lesson for all.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

When you use the defense of NOT RELEVANT it more often than not means you have no way to refute what was said to destroy your position. And that is what has happened to your position over the last several pages. We discovered that your position
1- centers around the so called beliefs of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration,
2 - the Founders did not truly believe the nonsense they professed to believe in
3- effectively rendering the statements of Jefferson and the other signers just so much public relations pap for the gullible and naive
4 - leaving you with nothing except a paddle up the river Denial as you furiously attempt to change course several times only to be drowned yet again

You have nothing left Turtle. All your arguments have been shown to be false and without foundation and it was done using the documents themselves, the actions of the founders themselves, the views of the founders themselves and exposing your own invention of positions you tried to claim they held that were proven false.

And all this in a thread about proof and evidence. And that is entirely appropriate and should be a lesson for all.

1) the issue is not your silly claims that the founders actually did not believe in a right to keep and bear arms merely because you think the DOI was a Lie (BTW have you figured out that those who signed the DOI and those who ratified the BOR are not the same set of people)

2) the only issue is what is the extent of the right they recognized in the 2A

and you have ZERO evidence that the founders wished to limit that right or they did not believe in that right as applied to them and other citizens

all rest of your silly evasion is just that

you are using a fraudulent argument that because you claim that those who signed the DOI didn't really believe it extended to all men therefore those who wrote and ratified the Bill of RIghts didn't believe those rights applied to THEM

you again have confused the extent of the right with the coverage of the right

big difference
 
Re: Proof and Facts

1) the issue is

that you claim there is a natural right which has never existed outside of a belief system.

All the rest is you trying to move the goal posts to a different arena in a different city after your arguments were completely crushed and flushed last evening.

Perhaps you want to tell us more about how Jefferson did not consider Africans as people? :doh

Or perhaps you can wax eloquently about how he only wanted to give rights to white men like himself despite stating that the rights from the Creator were held by ALL MEN? :roll:

Or perhaps where outside of a belief system held by a willful believer who believes because they want to believe we can find where this "pre-existing natural right" actually existed in reality? :shock:

Or perhaps you can finally answer key question as to if the belief in natural rights is only part of a belief system and cannot be found to actualy exist in the physical world, who then was able to exercise and use and enjoy that same right that was only a belief? :doh
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

natural rights are recognized by the constitution . The 5th and 14th amendments state ..life liberty and property

and yes they believed in natural rights, which preexisted the constitution....which is why rights are only recognized

So where exactly do we find these pre-existing natural rights outside of a persons belief system before constitutions or law?

And these so called pre-existing natural rights ... if they only existed in the belief system of believers, who then actually had those rights to exercise and use as rights?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

that you claim there is a natural right which has never existed outside of a belief system.

All the rest is you trying to move the goal posts to a different arena in a different city after your arguments were completely crushed and flushed last evening.

Perhaps you want to tell us more about how Jefferson did not consider Africans as people? :doh

Or perhaps you can wax eloquently about how he only wanted to give rights to white men like himself despite stating that the rights from the Creator were held by ALL MEN? :roll:

Or perhaps where outside of a belief system held by a willful believer who believes because they want to believe we can find where this "pre-existing natural right" actually existed in reality? :shock:

Or perhaps you can finally answer key question as to if the belief in natural rights is only part of a belief system and cannot be found to actualy exist in the physical world, who then was able to exercise and use and enjoy that same right that was only a belief? :doh

again whether natural rights exist or not is not relevant

what is relevant is the beliefs and desires of the men who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights

the beliefs of the founders are of central importance in determining what they intended with the constitution an the BOR

and that is why your arguments spend so much time dancing around that point and why your posts constantly divert, distort, evade and obfuscate this central matter

the fact is, the founders belief system is INCOMPATIBLE with your extremely narrow, specious and fraudulent interpretation of what the 2A means in terms of its limitations on federal governmental action. WHY? because

1) it is contrary to the concept of natural rights

2) it is contrary to every written document from that era that deals with the topic of armed citizens

3) it makes no sense given the environment and the entire premise of the Constitution

SO WHAT DO YOU DO?

you pretend that those who wrote the DOI Lied and from that you make the fanciful and fraudulent deduction that men who did not include slaves i their DOI pronouncements were actually Lying about other documents that were authored 15 or so years later by a different group of men

that is the entire substance of your argument

They LIED about the DOI they (a different set of "they") so they MUST HAVE LIED about the Bill of Rights

that fails because in the DOI the limitation is the coverage not the extent

and you are arguing extent rather than coverage as to the 2A which is a completely specious "bait and switch"

game set match Haymarket.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

again whether natural rights exist or not is not relevant

It is the centerpiece and tentpole of your very case Turtle. And it has been destroyed from every possible angle.

You cannot show us natural rights ever existed outside of a believers willful belief system.

You cannot show us they pre-existed before law or constitutions.

You cannot show us the Founders of our government believed in natural rights.

You cannot show us how actual people used or exercised natural rights that only existed in a persons belief system.

You cannot support anything you claim. So you attempt to change the subject and declare all you fought for and argued as now suddenly irrelevant.

All the rest is you trying to move the goal posts to a different arena in a different city after your arguments were completely crushed and flushed last evening.

Perhaps you want to tell us more about how Jefferson did not consider Africans as people? :doh

Or perhaps you can wax eloquently about how he only wanted to give rights to white men like himself despite stating that the rights from the Creator were held by ALL MEN? :roll:

Or perhaps where outside of a belief system held by a willful believer who believes because they want to believe we can find where this "pre-existing natural right" actually existed in reality? :shock:

Or perhaps you can finally answer key question as to if the belief in natural rights is only part of a belief system and cannot be found to actualy exist in the physical world, who then was able to exercise and use and enjoy that same right that was only a belief? :doh

And this time, please do not ignore these points or beg off claiming it is just too much to read.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

It is the centerpiece and tentpole of your very case Turtle. And it has been destroyed from every possible angle.

You cannot show us natural rights ever existed outside of a believers willful belief system.

You cannot show us they pre-existed before law or constitutions.

You cannot show us the Founders of our government believed in natural rights.

You cannot show us how actual people used or exercised natural rights that only existed in a persons belief system.

YOu cannot support anything you claim.

1) again you have destroyed nothing but your own argument

2) the existence of natural rights is not at issue

3) your claim that the founders did not believe in natural rights for citizens is without any merit

4) you continue to deliberately confuse Extent of a right with coverage by the right

5) you continue to engage in avoidance and evasion

6) none of your evasive actions support your specious interpretation of the Second Amendment

7) you have provided no evidence rebutting the fact that the founders believed in natural rights

8) the only issue is the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

9) your interpretation is supported by absolutely no evidence, proof, logic or rational deduction

a) rather your interpretation is based on YOUR OPINION that some of the founders lied when they signed the DOI

b) no document from that era supports your nonsense
 
Re: Proof and Facts

1) again you have destroyed nothing but your own argument

2) the existence of natural rights is not at issue

It is the centerpiece of your very argument. But now that it has been crushed and flushed, you desperately are trying to distance yourself from the sinking ship.

Every one of your constantly repeated points has already been refuted and all are subordinate to your main point which has been smashed and trashed.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

It is the centerpiece of your very argument. But now that it has been crushed and flushed, you desperately are trying to distance yourself from the sinking ship.

Every one of your constantly repeated points has already been refuted and all are subordinate to your main point which has been smashed and trashed.
again you are diverting

what is central in my argument is that your extremely limited and specious interpretation of the second amendment and your extremely fanciful and silly interpretation of Sec 8 clauses is completely contradicted by the entire foundation of the Constitution and the Bill of rights

you haven't refuted anything. rather you constantly spam over and over the claim you have without any support for such a repetitive falsehood
 
Re: Proof and Facts

3) your claim that the founders did not believe in natural rights for citizens is without any merit

The very actions of the Founders demonstrate beyond any doubt or argument that they did NOT believe the crap they put on parchment as they openly violated and abused the very rights they claim all men held.




4) you continue to deliberately confuse Extent of a right with coverage by the right

If a right in reality does not exist - it covers nobody.

5) you continue to engage in avoidance and evasion

If I were any more direct about my refutation and destruction of your arguments it would make Hiroshima look like a marshmallow roast on a cub scout camp out.

6) none of your evasive actions support your specious interpretation of the Second Amendment

Since I have not been evasive - that charge fails on its face ---- as it always does when you trot out that phony card of your own making.

7) you have provided no evidence rebutting the fact that the founders believed in natural rights

That is a falsehood of the worst and most blatant sort. I gave you the statement of the Founders in the Declaration and their own history and own actions and own beliefs in their own words from the historical record to demonstrate to all but the intentionally gullible and politically naive virgins that they did not believe in natural rights. You refuse to even consider it because it destroys your own position.

8) the only issue is the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

And, as always in these discussion, you mean YOUR interpretation.

9) your interpretation is supported by absolutely no evidence, proof, logic or rational deduction

No. My view is based on the actual Constitution and what it says and the powers given to Congress. I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment..

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.


a) rather your interpretation is based on YOUR OPINION that some of the founders lied when they signed the DOI

that is an undisputable fact of history.

b) no document from that era supports your nonsense

The Declaration itself and the actions of the Founders who wrote it and signed it support my claim 1000%.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

tl dr repeat spam

what politicians did post 1939 means nothing

and your only argument is that the founders didn't believe in what they wrote is beyond pathetic when it comes to rights they wanted to exercise

find an argument that is actually based on something other than your opinion and your desire to pretend the 2A allows all the anti gun crap the Democrats are trying to foist on us
 
Re: Proof and Facts

again you are diverting

Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about what the word actually means. My posts 271 and 273 took every single one of what you think are your points, refuted them, destroyed them, and left nothing standing except you clinging to your belief and forced to repeat your already refuted arguments like a mantra of faith.
 
Back
Top Bottom