• 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!

Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 150]

Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

no problem
Quoting posts is not the exposition procedure for any fallacy.

Try again.

Remember, you're trying to disprove Harvard. You will need to do a whole hell of a lot more than to quote me in order to accomplish that. You will need to dig into the internals of the Harvard study and publish, in credible journals, your falsifications.

Please link to your published research proving Harvard is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Quoting posts is not the exposition procedure for any fallacy.

Try again.

Quoting posts proves that you said what you are now claiming you did not say
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Quoting posts proves that you said what you are now claiming you did not say
You failed to quote me making a c=c argument. You failed to disprove Harvard. You failed to show where I was sourcing Lott.

Keep failing, please.

"More guns = less crime" is not a c=c argument. The presence of arms causes crime to go down. The Harvard study whent into great detail on exactly how the presence of guns reduces crime.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean Harvard or I made any error. It only means you didn't read the study, which means you aren't checking sources, which leads back to why I wasn't bothering to link those sources for you in the first place...I knew you would digest them.

You have proven me correct, you don't care about the truth because you aren't operating on reason and logic. You are operating on pure emotion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

You failed to quote me making a c=c argument. You failed to disprove Harvard. You failed to show where I was sourcing Lott.

Keep failing, please.

"More guns = less crime" is not a c=c argument. The presence of arms causes crime to go down. The Harvard study whent into great detail on exactly how the presence of guns reduces crime.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean Harvard or I made any error. It only means you didn't read the study, which means you aren't checking sources, which leads back to why I wasn't bothering to link those sources for you in the first place...I knew you would digest them.

You have proven me correct, you don't care about the truth because you aren't operating on reason and logic. You are operating on pure emotion.

While Harvard study you link is old, you also misread it. Even if murder rates are lower, it would be a fallacy to say gun control laws are the reason. How would you respond to something newer said something different?
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

While Harvard study you link is old, you also misread it.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.

Please fail again.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.

Please fail again.

Haven't failed the first time yet. You merely seem to not understand a few things.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

You failed to quote me making a c=c argument. You failed to disprove Harvard. You failed to show where I was sourcing Lott.

Keep failing, please.

"More guns = less crime" is not a c=c argument. The presence of arms causes crime to go down. The Harvard study whent into great detail on exactly how the presence of guns reduces crime.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean Harvard or I made any error. It only means you didn't read the study, which means you aren't checking sources, which leads back to why I wasn't bothering to link those sources for you in the first place...I knew you would digest them.

You have proven me correct, you don't care about the truth because you aren't operating on reason and logic. You are operating on pure emotion.

The Harvard study is nothing more than a study of correlation, and you think it proves something. That is proof that you're using the c=c fallacy
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

The Harvard study is nothing more than a study of correlation...
That's just another lie on your part.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Haven't failed the first time yet. You merely seem to not understand a few things.
Still waiting for you to show me where I sourced Lott......
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Still waiting for you to show me where I sourced Lott......

This what I mean by you missing things. I never said you did. But your arguments run through him.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

This what I mean by you missing things. I never said you did. But your arguments run through him.
We agree that I understand very little of what you say, like "your arguments run through him"...wtf is that? :lol:

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

So there we were discussing LoneStar allowing students to carry on campus. All of a sudden you bring up Lott, you attack Lott, you declare victory.

Meanwhile my argument is untouched because nothing I said had anything to do with Lott.

Go ahead and trash your straw-man Lott all you want. It does nothing to me.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

We agree that I understand very little of what you say, like "your arguments run through him"...wtf is that? :lol:



So there we were discussing LoneStar allowing students to carry on campus. All of a sudden you bring up Lott, you attack Lott, you declare victory.

Meanwhile my argument is untouched because nothing I said had anything to do with Lott.

Go ahead and trash your straw-man Lott all you want. It does nothing to me.

Because Lott is largely the originator of you argument, no matter where you picked it up at. However, I've also addressed you other evidence, to which you have not replied. You misread both Harvard and the FBI, making a causal relationship error.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Anyway Jerry, something newer than your Harvard Study:

Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.

Here’s how U.S. gun violence compares with the rest of the world

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.


FactCheck.org : Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts

You should read the second one completely and follow the links.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Because Lott is largely the originator of you argument, no matter where you picked it up at. However, I've also addressed you other evidence, to which you have not replied. You misread both Harvard and the FBI, making a causal relationship error.
There you go with your straw man again.

Lott is no part of anything I've ever said, and that's why you cannot show where I sourced him.

You lied.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

There you go with your straw man again.

Lott is no part of anything I've ever said, and that's why you cannot show where I sourced him.

You lied.

You didn't quote him, but he is they behind those ideas. You do read every word I write?
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Anyway Jerry, something newer than your Harvard Study:
Confess to lying and we can continue. Come on, show some honesty for once. Give me some indication that further conversation with you will not result in you lying again. Earn that avatar by showing some integrity.

...or are you one of those stolen-valor types?
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Confess to lying and we can continue. Come on, show some honesty for once. Give me some indication that further conversation with you will not result in you lying again. Earn that avatar by showing some integrity.

I vent lied, you merely are confused. I think you're hiding behind your false outrage. I never Said you outed Lott.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

You didn't quote him, but he is they behind those ideas.
He can be behind an idea out in the world while not behind my argument here on this thread.

If I don't source him, he's therefore not part of my argument.

See the difference?

If Hitler said it was cold outside right now, I would have to agree. That doesn't mean I'm sourcing Hitler for the weather.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

I vent lied, you merely are confused. I think you're hiding behind your false outrage. I never Said you outed Lott.
Capitol "S", what is that supposed to mean?
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

I vent lied, you merely are confused. I think you're hiding behind your false outrage. I never Said you outed Lott.
No, you lied. Straight up, you know it when you did it, you lied. You knew that what you were saying was false and you said it anyway. You lied.

I tried to have a decent conversation with you about why you thought guns weren't appropriate on a collage campus, and you **** all over this thread with lies and strawmen.

That's how you treat people who try to be decent to you. You **** on them. I showed you respect and you lied about me for pages.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

He can be behind an idea out in the world while not behind my argument here on this thread.

If I don't source him, he's therefore not part of my argument.

See the difference?

Try to follow me:

Source A gets it from Lott.

Source B gets it from source A.

Source C twist source B, buts keeps he same flawed logic.

And so on until you pick it up from some source along the way. It was based off Lott's flawed logic. It's largely the same claim, with the same mistaken reasoning. What applies to Lott applies to any variation on it. It's not the person who is flawed, it's the reasoning.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

No, you lied. Straight up, you know it when you did it, you lied. You knew that what you were saying was false and you said it anyway. You lied.

I tried to have a decent conversation with you about why you thought guns weren't appropriate on a collage campus, and you **** all over this thread with lies and strawmen.


Jerry, you are mistaken, badly.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Try to follow me:
Why so you can lie some more?
Source A gets it from Lott.

Source B gets it from source A.

Source C twist source B, buts keeps he same flawed logic.

And so on until you pick it up from some source along the way. It was based off Lott's flawed logic. It's largely the same claim, with the same mistaken reasoning. What applies to Lott applies to any variation on it. It's not the person who is flawed, it's the reasoning.
You're saying Harvard sourced Lott.

Quote it.
 
Re: Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 1

Why so you can lie some more?

You're saying Harvard sourced Lott.

Quote it.

I am saying you misread Harvard and are using the same flawed logic as Lott. Also, Harvard is old, too old to use.
 
Back
Top Bottom