• 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

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

more diversion-try again
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
more diversion-try again
Click to expand...

Your continued misuse of the word demonstrates one of two things
1- you really have no idea what the word DIVERSION means, or
2- you have nothing else left so you engage in intentional falsehoods about my positions putting forth claims without foundation or support and you know you are misusing the word.

I notice that it is YOU Turtle - you - who are unable to take my points and speak to them, let alone refute them. By that very fact it is you who are attempting to turn this into something other than actual debate on the issues and on the positions you take on the issues.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Your continued misuse of the word demonstrates one of two things
1- you really have no idea what the word DIVERSION means, or
2- you have nothing else left so you engage in intentional falsehoods about my positions putting forth claims without foundation or support and you know you are misusing the word.

I notice that it is YOU Turtle - you - who are unable to take my points and speak to them, let alone refute them. By that very fact it is you who are attempting to turn this into something other than actual debate on the issues and on the positions you take on the issues.
Click to expand...

opinion noted, not shared. constantly arguing whether natural rights exist is diversionary. The only issue is how to interpret documents that were written by men who believed in natural rights

so all of your rants about the existence of natural rights are DIVERSIONS
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
opinion noted, not shared. constantly arguing whether natural rights exist is diversionary.
Click to expand...

Since it is the very centerpiece of your argument and has been effectively destroyed, I can see why you are so desperate to distance yourself from it.

And since it is the centerpiece of your argument - NO DISCUSSION OF IT IS A DIVERSION but a direct head-on tackling of your key issue.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Since it is the very centerpiece of your argument and has been effectively destroyed, I can see why you are so desperate to distance yourself from it.
Click to expand...

again that is dishonest. the centerpiece of my argument is that my interpretation of the 2A and Sec 8 is consistent with the foundation that the Founders based the government (i.e. the constitution upon) that being, an expansive reading of rights and a limited grant of powers to the new government

you on the other hand-read government powers beyond any acceptable limits and read the 2A so narrowly as to make it worthless

and your only support for such silliness is

1) claiming the founders lied

2) confusing the extent of a right with the coverage of the right

3) pretending that the issue turns on whether Natural rights exist rather than admitting what matters is DID THE FOUNDERS BELIEVE in natural rights
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
again that is dishonest.
Click to expand...

No it is entirely 100% honest. You have stated that the Founders would never have given the federal government the powers over firearms because they believed in a pre-existing natural right to be armed.

As such, that is the centerpiece tentpole around which your canvas is held up and the three ring circus performs under. Chop down that tentpole and you have nothing left. And that is what I have done.

and your only support for such silliness is

1) claiming the founders lied
Click to expand...

I did not merely claim it - I proved it using their own words, their own actions and the historical record.

2) confusing the extent of a right with the coverage of the right
Click to expand...

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

3) pretending that the issue turns on whether Natural rights exist rather than admitting what matters is DID THE FOUNDERS BELIEVE in natural rights
Click to expand...

Which I conclusively proved that they did not. Or do you again want to assert the falsehood that Jefferson, Franklin and others believed that Africans were not human beings or men and thus they were not lying? I thought that claim was especially notable.

Or perhaps you want to return to your claim that because they wanted some rights from white men of property like themselves, they are exempt from lying about the term ALL MEN because they tried to cover their own asses while screwing everyone else not like them? And than makes them what exactly if not liars?

Any other goal posts you want to move Turtle? Or will you settle for repeating the same old same old that has already been refuted and flushed away?
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

celticwar17 said:
It depends, logic arguments don't need proof. You show the logic is not sound or try to claim one of the premises is false by providing proof of your own against all the premises.

Sometimes people try to pressure proof for a logic argument, just to derail/hack a thread.

And a problem with the internet is you can provide "proof" that pigs fly....
Click to expand...

yes, a logic argument doesn't need any links or outside voice to repeat it. Instead the logic must be addressed.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Moderator's Warning:
TurtleDude said:
opinion noted, not shared. constantly arguing whether natural rights exist is diversionary. The only issue is how to interpret documents that were written by men who believed in natural rights

so all of your rants about the existence of natural rights are DIVERSIONS
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
Since it is the very centerpiece of your argument and has been effectively destroyed, I can see why you are so desperate to distance yourself from it.

And since it is the centerpiece of your argument - NO DISCUSSION OF IT IS A DIVERSION but a direct head-on tackling of your key issue.
Click to expand...

This kind of thing needs to stop. Leave out personal comments, which have been liberally sprinkled over your discussion since last night, not just in these posts.

To the rest of you, keep that in mind as well. Don't pick up where some of you left off last night. There is already an in-thread warning at #75.

Moderator's Warning:
That said, I'd suggest that people stop making things personal in this thread.


Points and/or thread bans will be handed out.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
I have no problem with people believing in natural rights.... or the Faerie Kingdom .... or vampires .... or the Easter Bunny. It is fine with me.

But please DO NOT tell me that the rights we have today because of the US COnstitution PRE-EXISTED before they were ever written down when they only existed in the confines of somebody's own beliefs. And not one person can freely exercise or use a right which only exists in anothers mind and does not exist in the law of the country in which they reside.

If anyone says that natural rights pre-existed before written rights - they have a responsibility to prove it. Show me where they pre-existed and how people had the enjoyment and use of those rights before they were law.
Click to expand...
There is no way to prove whether natural rights exist.

However my understanding is that at least a good portion (perhaps all) of the persons involved in debating/writing/signing the constitution and some of it's amendments DID believe natural rights existed, and they wrote the clauses to protect those rights.

Thus it doesn't really matter whether you can prove natural rights exist or not - the key is whether you can convince others to support enshrining/codifying those rights into law.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Mark said:
There is no way to prove whether natural rights exist.

However my understanding is that at least a good portion (perhaps all) of the persons involved in debating/writing/signing the constitution and some of it's amendments DID believe natural rights existed, and they wrote the clauses to protect those rights.

Thus it doesn't really matter whether you can prove natural rights exist or not - the key is whether you can convince others to support enshrining/codifying those rights into law.
Click to expand...

absolutely. So when there is a dispute-over what the founders intended-the first place to start is to examine whether the proffered interpretation would make sense and be supported by someone who believed in natural rights and wanted to guarantee the protection thereof.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...


since rights are negative law and not written down, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

no, you are deflecting by just stating, "natural rights only exist to the believers of natural rights", which is no answer .

the declaration of independence IE u.s.code and its used in enabling laws support the fact of ........natural rights.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ernst barkmann said:
no, you are deflecting by just stating, "natural rights only exist to the believers of natural rights", which is no answer .

the declaration of independence IE u.s.code and its used in enabling laws support the fact of ........natural rights.
Click to expand...

the key issue is what I noted in my last post. those who believed in natural rights would not create a partial or deficient recognition of a natural right as some have claimed. its not whether they exist in the metaphysical sense but rather if those who wrote the law in question believed ini them

once we have established that the founders believed in natural rights (proven beyond any reasonable debate) then that proves our interpretation of the 2A (an expansive and universal prohibition on federal intrusions) and Sec 8 (a limited and specific grant of power) is correct
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
the key issue is what I noted in my last post. those who believed in natural rights would not create a partial or deficient recognition of a natural right as some have claimed. its not whether they exist in the metaphysical sense but rather if those who wrote the law in question believed ini them

once we have established that the founders believed in natural rights (proven beyond any reasonable debate) then that proves our interpretation of the 2A (an expansive and universal prohibition on federal intrusions) and Sec 8 (a limited and specific grant of power) is correct
Click to expand...


natural rights of the people are stated in the federalist papers. #2
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ernst barkmann said:
natural rights of the people are stated in the federalist papers. #2
Click to expand...

yes we know that and there is no denying that the "existence" of inalienable/natural rights is the presumption upon which the founders created the Constitution and the framework of the government
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
yes we know that and there is no denying that the "existence" of inalienable/natural rights is the presumption upon which the founders created the Constitution and the framework of the government
Click to expand...

yes ,so it is no question.....that they did believe in natural rights, and most definitely the anti federalist who wrote about them in their papers for there not being anything in the constitution to protect those rights.


anti-federalist papers #2

Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #2
 
Re: Proof and Facts

vasuderatorrent said:
I knew you were too lazy to read. That's why I offered the short version. You are being disrespectful and childish when you say that dumb mess.
Click to expand...

Are not. :D
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Mark said:
There is no way to prove whether natural rights exist.

However my understanding is that at least a good portion (perhaps all) of the persons involved in debating/writing/signing the constitution and some of it's amendments DID believe natural rights existed, and they wrote the clauses to protect those rights.

Thus it doesn't really matter whether you can prove natural rights exist or not - the key is whether you can convince others to support enshrining/codifying those rights into law.
Click to expand...

the founders who feigned a belief in natural rights only used the belief in them as a smokescreen for their own actions. no person - especially and educated person who professes a belief in the EQUALITY OF ALL MEN and who practices slavery can honestly believe in natural rights.

It was simply lipstick on the pig to con the gullible and politically naive.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ernst barkmann said:
no, you are deflecting by just stating, "natural rights only exist to the believers of natural rights", which is no answer .

the declaration of independence IE u.s.code and its used in enabling laws support the fact of ........natural rights.
Click to expand...

The statement in the Declaration was an outright lie when first written and was only a PR statement for the politically naive and gullible. The men who wrote it and many who signed it lived lives directly opposite and contrary of the high and mighty principles they stated they believed in.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ernst barkmann said:
natural rights of the people are stated in the federalist papers. #2
Click to expand...

Which is as much evidence of the existence of natural rights in the real world as writing the same nonsense on bathroom tissue. But at least that would have some real world practical value.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
The statement in the Declaration was an outright lie when first written and was only a PR statement for the politically naive and gullible. The men who wrote it and many who signed it lived lives directly opposite and contrary of the high and mighty principles they stated they believed in.
Click to expand...

haymarket you can believe whatever you wish, but your record of being consistently wrong is a proven fact.



you were wrong when you stated: the Constitution was ratified in Sept 1788




you were wrong when you stated:the bill of rights was ratified in March of 1792




you were wrong when you stated: article 1 section 8 of the constitution granted the federal government power to directly tax the people., even though direct taxes on the people was prohibited by the Constitution.




you were wrong when you stated: the bill of rights gave people their rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom