• 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:
Why do you ask the question over and over and over in thread after thread after thread when the answer is irrelevant to you as all you do is attack what the COurt has already said proving you wrong about Article I Section 8?
Click to expand...

again what court has ever held that anything other than the commerce clause supports federal gun control

and again the issue is what the founders intended-not what the FDR administration could conjure up
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
again what court has ever held that anything other than the commerce clause supports federal gun control
Click to expand...

They need nothing more than that. I have also stated repeatedly when you ask things like this that I am not FDR, I am not his attorney, and I am not the Court in the 1930's. As such I can have my own opinion and my own argument and I am NOT responsible for limiting myself to what they utilized in the Constitution in that time and in that case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
They need nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

but you claim the founders intended federal gun control in several of the clauses in addition to the commerce clause. its proof of that claim I want to see
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
but you claim the founders intended federal gun control in several of the clauses in addition to the commerce clause. its proof of that claim I want to see
Click to expand...

I have given that to you.... repeatedly.

Tell me Turtle and tell me honestly as you are not a stupid person but one who is well educated and experienced. YOu know what I will say... and I know what you will say ... so what is the point?

And we both know that you will ask it again soon and we will dance the same dance over again and the same stuff will be exchanged. So what exactly is the point of you asking me to provide the proof to you that you have already seen over and over and over again but rejected all those times?

Please explain that to me.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
I have given that to you.... repeatedly.

Tell me Turtle and tell me honestly as you are not a stupid person but one who is well educated and experienced. YOu know what I will say... and I know what you will say ... so what is the point?

And we both know that you will ask it again soon and we will dance the same dance over again and the same stuff will be exchanged. So what exactly is the point of you asking me to provide the proof to you that you have already seen over and over and over again but rejected all those times?

Please explain that to me.
Click to expand...

you have not given me anything other than a claim

no proof

no examination of the language which clearly contains nothing about gun control

just an opinion that has no support in any document from that era
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
you have not given me anything other than a claim

no proof

no examination of the language which clearly contains nothing about gun control

just an opinion that has no support in any document from that era
Click to expand...

The document is the US COnstitution.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
The document is the US COnstitution.
Click to expand...

that fails because it requires people to accept your interpretation of language that has nothing to do with federal gun control

you need to show us the specific language and why it says what you claim it does
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
that fails because it requires people to accept your interpretation of language that has nothing to do with federal gun control
Click to expand...

YOu badly confuse me with somebody who cares what people on gun threads think.

Article 1 section 8 the same five clauses i have given you over and over and over again. 1, 3, 15, 16 , 18 They have not changed.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
YOu badly confuse me with somebody who cares what people on gun threads think.

Article 1 section8 the same five clauses i have given you over and over and over again. They have not changed.
Click to expand...

and your saying so is not sufficient proof given that there is absolutely no support for your interpretation as to four of those
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
and your saying so is not sufficient proof given that there is absolutely no support for your interpretation as to four of those
Click to expand...

all I need is one Turtle and I have had that for decades now. That makes me the winner. As to the opinion of support from gun threads - I DON'T CARE.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
all I need is one Turtle and I have had that for decades now. As to the opinion of support from gun threads - I DON'T CARE.
Click to expand...

this is a thread about proof
you make a claim that certain clauses of sec 8 establish the founders intended federal gun control

all you have for four of those is your assertion

how about some proof?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
YOu badly confuse me with somebody who cares what people on gun threads think.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious you don't care, CT positions are like that. You know... hologram planes, thermite, founding fathers that were lying and fooled everyone... that kind of stuff. CTers just repeat it over and over, no matter what evidence is presented to them. This leads to a condition wherein the CTer doesn't actually care about anything anyone else says because everything other people say contradicts their loony CT.

They close the door to the outside, lock it and throw away the key. So, I don't think anyone is under the misconception that CTers care what non-CTers say. We know they can't.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
That makes me the winner. As to the opinion of support from gun threads - I DON'T CARE.
Click to expand...

This is getting sad.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
this is a thread about proof
Click to expand...

No its not as you have rejected it when presented to you.

All you do is ask the same questions over and over and over again and reject my answers. And when I ask questions you ignore them refusing to answer them.

So I ask you again Turtle - is there some point to repeating all this over and over and over again?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
No its not as you have rejected it when presented to you.
Click to expand...

I would still like to see some facts and proof other than your saying so since other than the commerce clause, not one gun control bill has ever tried to use one of the other clauses you mentioned as jurisdictional support

certainly, none of the founders ever expressed any support for your interpretation

so we need a bit more
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
I think it's pretty obvious you don't care, CT positions are like that. You know... hologram planes, thermite, founding fathers that were lying and fooled everyone... that kind of stuff. CTers just repeat it over and over, no matter what evidence is presented to them. This leads to a condition wherein the CTer doesn't actually care about anything anyone else says because everything other people say contradicts their loony CT.

They close the door to the outside, lock it and throw away the key. So, I don't think anyone is under the misconception that CTers care what non-CTers say. We know they can't.
Click to expand...

Are your initials CT or something?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
I would still like to see some facts and proof

so we need a bit more
Click to expand...

No you would not as you have been given it and you reject it only to ask the same questions over and over and over again while refusing to answer my questions to you.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
No you would not as you have been given it and you reject it only to ask the same questions over and over and over again while refusing to answer my questions to you.
Click to expand...

humor me and tell me all the proof you have marshaled in support of your claim about those clauses other than the commerce clause
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
No its not as you have rejected it when presented to you.
Click to expand...

The thread is not about proof? Sure it is. Your CT is being exposed for the slime it is. You have no proof, just "founders owned slaves so everything they said was a lie, even if science proves it, and everyone except me has been fooled!"

You reject science, you reject history and you reject a sane interpretation of the Constitution. That does not constitute proof about anything or anyone else.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
humor me and tell me all the proof you have marshaled in support of your claim about those clauses other than the commerce clause
Click to expand...

Why should I humor you when you have been given everything you have asked for time after time after time, rejected it, only to ask for it again and again only to then reject it again?

All I need is the commerce clause. And that gives me the win.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
. Your CT is being exposed for the slime it is.
Click to expand...

So your initials are CT?

You reject science, you reject history and you reject a sane interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

YOu calling your nonsensical question in that bogus survey "science" is ridiculous. YOu still have not been able to explain what it even means.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Are your initials CT or something?
Click to expand...

CT stands for Conspiracy Theory. You know, wacky narratives without a shred of proof that involve hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators. And everyone that doesn't believe hologram planes or the founders as evil tricksters is an enemy to be ignored.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Why should I humor you when you have been given everything you have asked for time after time after time, rejected it, only to ask for it again and again only to then reject it again?

All I need is the commerce clause. And that gives me the win.
Click to expand...

this isn't HS Debate with a trophy. its about your proof that the other clauses support your claim and btw there is no evidence the CC was intended by the founders as a grant of gun control. can you find ANY EVIDENCE the founders wanted the CC to be so used
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
CT stands for Conspiracy Theory.
Click to expand...

sure.

Can you explain what this means and what it has to do with a scientific proof 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".
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom