• 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:
that has been provided to you dozens of times
Click to expand...

excellent. So simply produce one.

But you will not do so because there is nothing to produce.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
I'm just saying, if you're not finding an audience for your conspiracy theory, perhaps it's because you're not in that subforum.
Click to expand...

You are not making sense on any level.

Why don't you try explaining your big survey question which "proves" that natural rights exist?

We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others". The answer to this question is always no. This establishes the self evidence of the right, regardless of any governmental authority.
Click to expand...

What the heck does that even mean?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
1- Because they had a brain.
3- because the responsibility of government is a hell of a lot different than the idle musings of the dilettantes where nothing is at risk.
2- You never proved they wanted the rights that you claim they wanted - so the ball is still in your court.
Click to expand...

that is a rather deficient proof.

they thought federal gun control was needed in addition to state police powers? can you find anything from anyone associated with the creation of the constitution that actually supports that speculation?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
and I should care more about that than the reality I live in for the year 2014 because ...???????
Click to expand...

Sounded like you were talking about the Founders being hypocrites... what does that have to do with 2014?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
that is a rather deficient proof.

they thought federal gun control was needed in addition to state police powers? can you find anything from anyone associated with the creation of the constitution that actually supports that speculation?
Click to expand...

It is a perfect proof which you do not like because it destroys your premise.

Yes. Article I Section 8.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Bodhisattva said:
Sounded like you were talking about the Founders being hypocrites... what does that have to do with 2014?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the argument put forth by Turtle that the Founders believed in natural rights.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
You are not making sense on any level.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it's me. And I don't think I've used too many big words for the average person; it is plain English.

Of course, you're not quoting the part about the survey experiment prompted by self evidence, you're just looking at the impetus of that experiment, the self evidence. Self evidence is not an experiment. Perhaps try it one step at a time, reading my explanation slowly.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
It is a perfect proof which you do not like because it destroys your premise.

Yes. Article I Section 8.
Click to expand...

there is no language in that that even hints to federal gun control

why did the authors not make it plain if they wanted what you claimed they did?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
It has to do with the argument put forth by Turtle that the Founders believed in natural rights.
Click to expand...

and you deny this based on what?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
It has to do with the argument put forth by Turtle that the Founders believed in natural rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I'll say it again: Time period is context.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
It is a perfect proof which you do not like because it destroys your premise.

Yes. Article I Section 8.
Click to expand...

and there is no words in any part of sec 8 that even hints at such a power

and there is no document contemporaneous with the constitution from ANY of those who supported the constitution's enactment that supports your argument

so it appears its merely speculation without any evidence whatsoever
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
why did the authors not make it plain if they wanted what you claimed they did?
Click to expand...

Why not ask why government agents would use thermite to bring down the Twin Towers? Like the answer will be meaningful, haha.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
the one you expressed in you 362
Click to expand...
There was no falsehood there.

i simply stated that if a hypothetical person did not count slaves as men/human, they could easily write up a law that says all men are created equal and have the same inalienable rights without being hypocritical in the least.

Even if another hypothetical person DID count slaves as men/human, they could still compromise and sign a law they didn't entirely agree with.
---------------
My point is that misunderstanding reality in that manner does not invalidate a law written under that misunderstanding to apply to "all" - it is only necessary to readjust the definition of "all".
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
there is no language in that that even hints to federal gun control

why did the authors not make it plain if they wanted what you claimed they did?
Click to expand...

They did. Deliberate and intentional denial is what stands in the way of you admitting that
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Mark said:
There was no falsehood there.

i simply stated that if a hypothetical person did not count slaves as men/human, they could easily write up a law that says all men are created equal and have the same inalienable rights without being hypocritical in the least.

Even if another hypothetical person DID count slaves as men/human, they could still compromise and sign a law they didn't entirely agree with.
---------------
My point is that misunderstanding reality in that manner does not invalidate a law written under that misunderstanding to apply to "all" - it is only necessary to readjust the definition of "all".
Click to expand...

Screw the hypothetical person. We are talking about the author of the statement - one Thomas Jefferson. Got that?

Yesterday I presented the views of Jefferson on that very topic from two different Jefferson sites and there is no doubt at all that he considered Africans as MEN who were entitled to rights. see posts 248 and 253 for the verifiable evidence.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
and there is no words in any part of sec 8 that even hints at such a power

and there is no document contemporaneous with the constitution from ANY of those who supported the constitution's enactment that supports your argument

so it appears its merely speculation without any evidence whatsoever
Click to expand...

Intentional denial is what prevents you from seeing the obvious that the evidence is Article I Section 8 right there in the Constitution as has been explained to you time after time after time.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
They did. Deliberate and intentional denial is what stands in the way of you admitting that
Click to expand...

they did not say that plainly or even inferred it

plainly would be

Congress has the power to regulate arms owned by the citizens of the several states

there is nothing plain at all
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
they did not say that plainly or even inferred it

plainly would be

Congress has the power to regulate arms owned by the citizens of the several states

there is nothing plain at all
Click to expand...

that is simply the protective defense mechanism of denial.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Intentional denial is what prevents you from seeing the obvious that the evidence is Article I Section 8 right there in the Constitution as has been explained to you time after time after time.
Click to expand...

yes you continue to say that and no one else has found it to be as you claim.

it took 140 years for someone to pretend the commerce clause allowed it

what specific words plainly demonstrate a power to regulate small arms was intended by the founders

you have never ever shown us the exact words you claim plainly delegate that power
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
yes you continue to say that and no one else has found it to be as you claim.
Click to expand...

No one else?!?!?!? Who in tarnation is NO ONE ELSE and tell me why I should give any concern to what anybody else says in the first place?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
No one else?!?!?!? Who in tarnation is NO ONE ELSE and tell me why I should give any concern to what anybody else says in the first place?
Click to expand...

if the language of sec 8 is as plain a delegation of power as you say it is, how is it that NOT ONE Gun control bill has ever invoked anything other than the commerce clause as jurisdictional support. NO bill ever introduced to congress to infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms invokes

ANYTHING other than the commerce clause

PLAIN TO ME means at least a FEW other people would SEE what you claim is obvious
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
it took 140 years for someone to pretend the commerce clause allowed it
Click to expand...

Which is ancient history compared to Scalia recently discovering the Second Amendment is an individual right.

So who cares when? It shows I am right about Article I Section 8 and you are wrong.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Which is ancient history compared to Scalia recently discovering the Second Amendment is an individual right.

So who cares when? It shows I am right about Article I Section 8 and you are wrong.
Click to expand...

how was that so discovered when that was the obvious intent of the founders

if you are right how is it there is no language in sec 8 that even hints at such a power and you refuse to actually show as the actual words and demonstrate that those words really mean federal gun control
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom