• 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!

[W:963] The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

Wayne Jr said:
The Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, various letters, and the Articles of Confederation are not law, have zero authority, and cannot be used as evidence before the Supreme Court. They don't matter.
Click to expand...

Anything can be used as evidence. Their value as evidence is entirely context-specific.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Those were not used as evidence, which is what I said, that they're inadmissible as evidence.

The Justices themselves are free to use whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it's admissible as evidence.
Click to expand...

You'll pardon me if I don't fall for the hypocritical argument. SCOTUS uses them as a basis for rulings, we aren't arguing a case, we are discussing the basis for decisions.

You have attempted to place multiple bars to evidence, have engaged in multiple ad homs, tried to control the discussion at every turn. You act like a statist, you sound like a statist, you favor authoritarian methods, never dreaming they could be used on you. You are what is wrong with gun control, the disingenuousness is all too real.
 
Harshaw said:
Is the "Moderate view" correct, or isn't it? Yes, or no? Take a stand.
Click to expand...
This thread is for understanding the Moderate view, not for arguing that the Moderate view is right or wrong. I will not answer your question in this thread, but I will invite you to return to the topic.
 
Wayne Jr said:
This thread is for understanding the Moderate view, not for arguing that the Moderate view is right or wrong. I will not answer your question in this thread, but I will invite you to return to the topic.
Click to expand...

That is the weaseling I expected.
 
OpportunityCost said:
SCOTUS uses them as a basis for rulings, we aren't arguing a case, we are discussing the basis for decisions.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Justices can use them, but not the Prosecution nor Defense.

How do you not understand that the parties with a dispute are not the same party as the Court?

The Justices can use references to decide a case that the Prosecution and Defense are not allowed to use when presenting their arguments.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Yes, the Justices can use them, but not the Prosecution nor Defense.

How do you not understand that the parties with a dispute are not the same party as the Court?

The Justices can use references to decide a case that the Prosecution and Defense are not allowed to use when presenting their arguments.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculously wrong. As wrong as calling the sides, when arguing before the Supreme Court, "Prosecution" and "Defense." If you knew what you were talking about, you'd call them "appellant" and "respondent."
 
Wayne Jr said:
I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a good evening :)
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be sorry that I feel that way. You should be sorry for presenting such a transparently dishonest front.
 
Harshaw said:
That's ridiculously wrong. As wrong as calling the sides, when arguing before the Supreme Court, "Prosecution" and "Defense." If you knew what you were talking about, you'd call them "appellant" and "respondent."
Click to expand...
Thing is, I only have your word for it. You, someone I don't know, from the internet.

If I've used an incorrect term, that doesn't invalidate my argument. All it does is discount my own authority, but as I'm not using my own authority in the first place, that discount doesn't matter.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Thing is, I only have your word for it. You, someone I don't know, from the internet.

If I've used an incorrect term, that doesn't invalidate my argument. All it does is discount my own authority, but as I'm not using my own authority in the first place, that discount doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Your argument AND your terms are incorrect.

They are consistently incorrect because you are plowing forward fully aware that you don't know what you're talking about, but you don't care. You're insisting that what you WANT to be true is true, and aren't interested in finding out beforehand if it is or not, as a good-faith argument requires.

Thing is, it isn't true. And you don't need to take my word for it. You can find out for yourself. IF, that is, you cared about truth in your argument. If.
 
Harshaw said:
And you don't need to take my word for it.
Click to expand...
You haven't provided any source material at all, while I have, so believe me I do not take your word for it. Good morning :)
 
Wayne Jr said:
You haven't provided any source material at all, while I have, so believe me I do not take your word for it. Good morning :)
Click to expand...

You have provided no source material for your claim that parties are not allowed to even argue documents like the Declaration in front of the Supreme Court, nor that the parties are called "Prosecution" and "Defense."

You can't, because you're wrong. And you do not CARE that you're wrong, else you would check on your own to see if you are and then correct yourself, instead of simply dismissing it with "you haven't proved me wrong."

You know you aren't learned in the law. You know you have no idea and are making things up. That it's good enough for you speaks to, again, bad faith, and stubborn bad faith at that.

As for "support," well, you keep insisting you're not here to discuss whether the "Moderate view" is correct, only what it is. Which is a worthless conversation. So it is what it is. So what? It's wrong. There's no point is discussing an incorrect view simply for its own sake, any more than there's any value in discussing theories that the Earth is flat.
 
Harshaw said:
You have provided no source material for your claim that parties are not allowed to even argue documents like the Declaration in front of the Supreme Court....
Click to expand...
Mhmm ok, sure I didn't :roll:

InB4 "show me where you did, then"...just proves you didn't consume what has already been provided. Lame.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Mhmm ok, sure I didn't :roll:

InB4 "show me where you did, then"...just proves you didn't consume what has already been provided. Lame.
Click to expand...

So, "yuh-HUH!!!" OK.

As I said, if you cared about truth, if you cared about arguing in good faith, you'd find out if you're right. Not to "win"; just to be honest, and correct.
 
Harshaw said:
So, "yuh-HUH!!!" OK.

As I said, if you cared about truth, if you cared about arguing in good faith, you'd find out if you're right. Not to "win"; just to be honest, and correct.
Click to expand...

Iv'e explained before that there is no "win" on this thread. There is no victory for any party here, including myself. This thread is for educating others on the Moderate view. That's it. There is no 'win' condition, not even for me.

This thread serves an educational purpose. You've chosen to not partake. I didn't require you to partake in the first place. This thread is an offering, not a demand. In fact, I make no demands of you at all.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Iv'e explained before that there is no "win" on this thread. There is no victory for any party here, including myself. This thread is for educating others on the Moderate view. That's it. There is no 'win' condition, not even for me.
Click to expand...

What's the point of "educating" anyone on a theory that's incorrect?
 
Harshaw said:
What's the point of "educating" anyone on a theory that's incorrect?
Click to expand...
Moderates welcome corrections.

Please link to a credible 3rd party source for any point you feel I was incorrect on.

Please remember that this thread is for explaining the Moderate view, not for arguing that Moderates are right or wrong. Your sources showing that I have not correctly represented the Moderate view are appropriate, while sources arguing against the Moderate view per-se are off-topic.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Moderates welcome corrections.
Click to expand...

The thousand+ posts in this thread prove that you don't. Though I don't think you're actually a "moderate" at all.

Rather than "welcoming corrections," you've been insisting you're not here to discuss whether the theory is right or wrong.


Please link to a credible 3rd party source for any point you feel I was incorrect on.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people have done that. You've ignored and dismissed all of it.

Never mind that it's you who needs to provide the rock-solid support for your own claims.

Anyway, as I said, you already know that you're just plain making things up, and that you have no idea of what you're talking about. An honest person doesn't make something up and then demand that others prove them wrong. An honest person takes steps to get it right before going public.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Please remember that this thread is for explaining the Moderate view, not for arguing that Moderates are right or wrong. Your sources showing that I have not correctly represented the Moderate view are appropriate, while sources arguing against the Moderate view per-se are off-topic.
Click to expand...

I ask you again -- what's the point of "explaining" or "educating on" something that's incorrect?
 
Harshaw said:
Plenty of people have done that. You've ignored and dismissed all of it.
Click to expand...
The only evidence I have dismissed are Founding Father quotes, and I gave my exact reasons why. Simply watching the complete OP video would have told anyone that Founding Father quotes were uniformly dismissed by Moderates. Did you not watch the OP video in its entirety before making your very first post in this thread, as you should have?
 
Harshaw said:
I ask you again -- what's the point of "explaining" or "educating on" something that's incorrect?
Click to expand...

Moderates welcome corrections.

Please link to a credible 3rd party source for any point you feel I was incorrect on.

Please remember that this thread is for explaining the Moderate view, not for arguing that Moderates are right or wrong. Your sources showing that I have not correctly represented the Moderate view are appropriate, while sources arguing against the Moderate view per-se are off-topic.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The only evidence I have dismissed are Founding Father quotes, and I gave my exact reasons why. Simply watching the complete OP video would have told anyone that Founding Father quotes were uniformly dismissed by Moderates. Did you not watch the OP video in its entirety before making your very first post in this thread, as you should have?
Click to expand...

I ask you again -- what's the point of "explaining" or "educating on" something that's incorrect?
 
Wayne Jr said:
Moderates welcome corrections.

Please link to a credible 3rd party source for any point you feel I was incorrect on.

Please remember that this thread is for explaining the Moderate view, not for arguing that Moderates are right or wrong. Your sources showing that I have not correctly represented the Moderate view are appropriate, while sources arguing against the Moderate view per-se are off-topic.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes; you keep insisting you're here just to explain what the "Moderate view" is, and to "educate" on it.

But the "Moderate view" is wrong.

So what's the point of explaining it? What value does it have, other than an example of something that's just plain wrong (which is to say, not much)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom