• 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:
proof of facts. and it was responsive
Click to expand...

So, give me your argument in full so that I can respond to IT and not go 'round and 'round about old stuff.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
So, give me your argument in full so that I can respond to IT and not go 'round and 'round about old stuff.
Click to expand...

the smallest unit that justifies federal commerce clause jurisdiction is state level. the commerce clause was designed to allow congress to resolve commercial disputes between states (such as if Ohio were to tax or impose duties on goods being shipped down the Ohio River from Pennsylvania to St. Louis for example. there is no mention of interstate commerce among individuals nor is the expansive nonsense about 'affecting interstate' commerce mentioned. To claim that the founders intended, or the words they used can be used as a back door grant of a power to regulate retail sales of firearms is specious.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
the smallest unit that justifies federal commerce clause jurisdiction is state level. the commerce clause was designed to allow congress to resolve commercial disputes between states (such as if Ohio were to tax or impose duties on goods being shipped down the Ohio River from Pennsylvania to St. Louis for example. there is no mention of interstate commerce among individuals nor is the expansive nonsense about 'affecting interstate' commerce mentioned. To claim that the founders intended, or the words they used can be used as a back door grant of a power to regulate retail sales of firearms is specious.
Click to expand...

Please study interstate...

And then of course, as to your argument: sure, that's why certain military rifles etc are illegal in certain states. This is why we say that our constitution is living document: it breathes acording to our needs.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
Please study interstate...

And then of course, as to your argument: sure, that's why certain military rifles etc are illegal in certain states. This is why we say that our constitution is living document: it breathes acording to our needs.
Click to expand...


I don't think you want to discuss how much study I have had of this issue. saying the constitution is a living document is common with those who want to kill it
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
I don't think you want to discuss how much study I have had of this issue. saying the constitution is a living document is common with those who want to kill it
Click to expand...

It's a very imple and very true statment: it was written to be a living document. That is why is some places it seems so vague. Your studies should have suggested that to you: powers not granted to teh federal government are left to the states is a good example. What powers do the states have with respect to issues? Your study should have told this very simple truth as well.

What credible proofs do you offer (topical...) that show your opinion to be indeed fact?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
It's a very imple and very true statment: it was written to be a living document. That is why is some places it seems so vague. Your studies should have suggested that to you: powers not granted to teh federal government are left to the states is a good example. What powers do the states have with respect to issues? Your study should have told this very simple truth as well.

What credible proofs do you offer (topical...) that show your opinion to be indeed fact?
Click to expand...

a living document in the sense it could be amended. changing the meaning of words to create new governmental powers is dishonest.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
a living document in the sense it could be amended. changing the meaning of words to create new governmental powers is dishonest.
Click to expand...

The only thing that says is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Go get your proofs.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
The only thing that says is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Go get your proofs.
Click to expand...

you are claiming I don't know what I am talking about

so it is your learned opinion that in addition to AMENDING the Constitution, the founders believed that the court or politicians could expand the power of the federal government by merely pretending that the clear language of say the commerce clause now-140 years after the document was written-means that congress could fine a farmer for going wheat for his own consumption,

that is you view of what the founders intended? so why have an amendment process

:lamo
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
you are claiming I don't know what I am talking about

so it is your learned opinion that in addition to AMENDING the Constitution, the founders believed that the court or politicians could expand the power of the federal government by merely pretending that the clear language of say the commerce clause now-140 years after the document was written-means that congress could fine a farmer for going wheat for his own consumption,

that is you view of what the founders intended? so why have an amendment process

:lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not only claiming that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm declaring it: "You don't know what you're talking about". You come into a "proofs required thread, you make a ridiculous assertion - that makes some sort of sense to you - and then you can't back it up.

And I'm wrong!?!

Ho ho
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
I'm not only claiming that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm declaring it: "You don't know what you're talking about". You come into a "proofs required thread, you make a ridiculous assertion - that makes some sort of sense to you - and then you can't back it up.

And I'm wrong!?!

Ho ho
Click to expand...

this is a fundamental question about the entire foundation upon which are government was based upon

do you believe that the founders set up a government that can expand its power by merely saying that the words the founders used now mean something different than what was obviously the case in 1790 or so?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
this is a fundamental question about the entire foundation upon which are government was based upon

do you believe that the founders set up a government that can expand its power by merely saying that the words the founders used now mean something different than what was obviously the case in 1790 or so?
Click to expand...

I've already challenged your assertion. Prove it.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
I've already challenged your assertion. Prove it.
Click to expand...

No you have made a claim that the constitution is a Living document. You have failed to explain what that means or back it up.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
No you have made a claim that the constitution is a Living document. You have failed to explain what that means or back it up.
Click to expand...

Here's your assertion; post #401
that doesn't address my point about the federal government and the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause does it?
Click to expand...

Prove it. By that I mean - get a credible and objective source proof to back up that ridiculous assertion.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
Here's your assertion; post #401

Prove it. By that I mean - get a credible and objective source proof to back up that ridiculous assertion.
Click to expand...

you are the one that claimed that the constitution is a living document and can be changed at will

you admitted that the commerce clause was expanded and you supported that
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
you are the one that claimed that the constitution is a living document and can be changed at will

you admitted that the commerce clause was expanded and you supported that
Click to expand...

the federal government and the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause does it?
Click to expand...


That is the assertion I repsonded to. Now either back it up with a credible proof, or admit that you can't.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
That is the assertion I repsonded to. Now either back it up with a credible proof, or admit that you can't.
Click to expand...

you don't know what the founders intended?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
you don't know what the founders intended?
Click to expand...

So I knew you couldn't prove it.

The classic example of why proofs and evidence are important in debate discussion.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
So I knew you couldn't prove it.

The classic example of why proofs and evidence are important in debate discussion.
Click to expand...

is it your position that the founders wanted restricted rights and expansive government powers?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
is it your position that the founders wanted restricted rights and expansive government powers?
Click to expand...

You lost the aregument dude. This thread is not about government powers. Start one. I'm not going to participate in derailing the thread.

You have provided very convenient proof of why evidence and source proof are important in debate.

Thank you very much.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
You lost the aregument dude. This thread is not about government powers. Start one. I'm not going to participate in derailing the thread.

You have provided very convenient proof of why evidence and source proof are important in debate.

Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

you can proclaim I lost an argument all I want

can you answer the question

Here is why

if you deny the question as to what the founders intended- you lose

if you admit it, then you admit I proved the point
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
you can proclaim I lost an argument all I want

can you answer the question

Here is why

if you deny the question as to what the founders intended- you lose

if you admit it, then you admit I proved the point
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about; I proved it - goodbye.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
You don't know what you're talking about; I proved it - goodbye.
Click to expand...
So both of you are saying the other guy isn't arguing fair, so you win?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
You don't know what you're talking about; I proved it - goodbye.
Click to expand...


I am amused your posts don't contain an answer. but that is all the answer I need
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Mark said:
So both of you are saying the other guy isn't arguing fair, so you win?
Click to expand...

No. The thread is about proofs and evidence. Turtledude made a ridiculous assertion and I challenged him to prove it and of course he couldn't. Now he wants to run around in circles and derail the thread. So, on the point of proof - which is the topic - he lost.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
No. The thread is about proofs and evidence. Turtledude made a ridiculous assertion and I challenged him to prove it and of course he couldn't. Now he wants to run around in circles and derail the thread. So, on the point of proof - which is the topic - he lost.
Click to expand...
Looked to me like you challenged him, he proved it, but you rejected his proof, and now he's asking you to explain why you did so.

Perhaps I missed something somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom