• 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!

Will the March for Our Lives be bigger than the Women's March?

Will it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • No

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Phys251 said:
This thread is about March for Our Lives and the Women's March, not the right to choose. If you oppose that right, feel free to start a thread in the appropriate forum.
Click to expand...

Then why is Planned Parenthood involved?:Oopsie
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why aren't gun rights advocates opposed to children dying then?
Click to expand...

Why aren't SnapChat users and every other texting/social media platform company opposed to children dying, since they do in FAR higher numbers from distracted driving than they do from a school shooter?
 
Moderate Right said:
The women's march was a pro-abortion march. Women who were pro-life were personna non grata.
Click to expand...

Pro-abortion, anti-Trump march.
Pro-life feminists were disinvited.
 
SMTA said:
With 20~30% of our kids going hungry every day, it makes much more sense to starve them to death slowly buy taking away benefits for moderate and low income families as Trump and his cronies are doing.
****ing hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely abhorrent to justify abortion by not wanting to have kids around that you have to feed. Disgusting.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
For the same reason you won't stop beating your wife.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing me of a real life crime here? Because that is a violation of the forum rules...

The most interesting thing though is that you are saying you are not opposed to children killing each other... great morals buddy... :roll:
 
Acadia said:
Why aren't SnapChat users and every other texting/social media platform company opposed to children dying, since they do in FAR higher numbers from distracted driving than they do from a school shooter?
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that this is a straw man... texting deaths are accidents and intentionally shooting unarmed people is not.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's absolutely abhorrent to justify abortion by not wanting to have kids around that you have to feed. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

That's moral relativism for ya:roll:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Besides the fact that this is a straw man... texting deaths are accidents and intentionally shooting unarmed people is not.
Click to expand...

Because preventing death from one is different than preventing death from another, or are some deaths more equal than others?

Yes, I think that's it.
 
Acadia said:
Because preventing death from one is different than preventing death from another, or are some deaths more equal than others?

Yes, I think that's it.
Click to expand...

Think that all you want... it is still a Straw Man.

That is known as an Argument Fail.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's absolutely abhorrent to justify abortion by not wanting to have kids around that you have to feed. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

You conveniently missed the sarcasm, of course.
Unsuccessful dodge of hypocrisy by you.
 
Moderate Right said:
The women's march was a pro-abortion march. Women who were pro-life were personna non grata.
Click to expand...

Anyone who uses that well-refuted phrase in anything other than a sarcastic or mocking tone instantly nullifies their entire point. Next!
 
**** you you ****, standing on the graves of children

Bodhisattva said:
Are you accusing me of a real life crime here? Because that is a violation of the forum rules...
Click to expand...

Actually, its the most common example of the (loaded question) fallacy you were guilty of; I though you might have been clever enough to grasp that, it would seem that I overestimated you.

Bodhisattva said:
The most interesting thing though is that you are saying you are not opposed to children killing each other... great morals buddy... :roll:
Click to expand...

Clearly sarcasm goes over your head, among other things.

I have never said anything like what you are claiming. 2nd Logical Fallacy: Straw man.

Great debate skills buddy, dishonest and a misrepresentation.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Think that all you want... it is still a Straw Man.

That is known as an Argument Fail.
Click to expand...

No, it's a logical argument and I'll tell you something that is a fail, and that's the notion that the epicenter of the Parkland shooting is guns. It is not.
The level of incompetence, lust for power, money, status and the overarching horrible policies which Obama enacted all coalesced into Nikolas Cruz and his 3 dozen police visits with ZERO actual repercussions, his never being institutionalized despite glaring mental illness and his never being charged with actual crimes which he committed prior to shooting and killing 17 people with a gun which he should have never, ever been allowed to purchase.
You're facile response is defensive and deflective because I bet deep down, you know this is true.

But, hey, that Florida county sure did drive down their student crime statistics, didn't they?
 
earthworm said:
OR so it seems
Conservatives are apparently very quiet on this, for good reason, IMO .
Click to expand...

Quiet on what exactly? Only on support for gun control, which is proven to do nothing to prevent these mass shootings. If anything, we support things that will actually help, but anyone who proposes anything other than "Its the guns!" triggers your side.

In my experience you would forego actual remedies for ineffectual gun control, which tells me you're still "not letting a tragedy go to waste" while standing on the graves of children for your political agenda.
 
Re: **** you you ****, standing on the graves of children

Spartacus FPV said:
Actually, its the most common example of the (loaded question) fallacy you were guilty of; I though you might have been clever enough to grasp that, it would seem that I overestimated you.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps I am taking your loaded question and dismissing it in order to screw with you... perhaps I over estimated you.

Clearly sarcasm goes over your head, among other things.
Click to expand...

You think that after being here with me for 12 years?

Great debate skills buddy, dishonest and a misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

Why do you make such an accusation? Care to back it up with facts for a change?
 
Acadia said:
No, it's a logical argument and I'll tell you something that is a fail, and that's the notion that the epicenter of the Parkland shooting is guns. It is not.
The level of incompetence, lust for power, money, status and the overarching horrible policies which Obama enacted all coalesced into Nikolas Cruz and his 3 dozen police visits with ZERO actual repercussions, his never being institutionalized despite glaring mental illness and his never being charged with actual crimes which he committed prior to shooting and killing 17 people with a gun which he should have never, ever been allowed to purchase.
You're facile response is defensive and deflective because I bet deep down, you know this is true.

But, hey, that Florida county sure did drive down their student crime statistics, didn't they?
Click to expand...

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

Logical Fallacies» Straw Man Fallacy
 
Phys251 said:
Anyone who uses that well-refuted phrase in anything other than a sarcastic or mocking tone instantly nullifies their entire point. Next!
Click to expand...

You can't change the fact that pro-life women were not welcome and were told so.
 
I suspect it will be very successful in its own right but fall a bit short of the massive turnout for the Jan 21, 2017 march.
 
Are they just pointlessly marching, or do they have a realistic idea to solve the problem, I don’t think moving the age limit is the cure, are they asking for guards at every school?
I mean what’s their point!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom