@FLanon @-MH- ghost @TheLibNat @TrippyTurtle I'll type from here, wife has to wake up at 4

o oki

my wife is watching planet earth

I wanna argue gun control in a min

I wanna take the "for" stance and play devil's advocate

alright

I wanna fire guns at anyone who says i cant have them

thats my offical stance

democracy turns men into women and women into men. slowly not all at once

its all part of satans plan for a one world government and a one world gender

let's actually do a debate in format

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/debformats.html

I wanna debate gun control with @FLanon

in format

Seizure of firearms is the goal for my platform

so i'll be the "negative"

check that link

look in the parentheses beneath

lol

hehe

A is affirmative

n is negative

the two teams

t. former debate coach and moderator

constructive

so he argues in a constructive manner for his goal

lay down your goal

i can do mine as aff(irmative)

well i'm typing, we can keep times brief

brief sentences

thatshould be plenty

keyboard willing

Gun control, the control (by the govt) of all private firearms, is a necessary goal in order to see murder rates by firearms cut down. I am arguing for lives, and not statistics.

lurker

AFK, but I'm for guns

I see the aggressive seizure and forfeiture of all firearms, particularly those of criminals, in order to better secure the security of our public and our peoples.

im for rec nukes

>secure the security

pardon i'm inebriated

noguns

yeah i'm done

remember to stay constructive for your argument

back to lurkin

second constructive

i can just rebut now

nah

i might surprise you two

I'll do a rebuttal

Can I do four for typing?

four mins

I can actually help you ghost. you need to rebrand into Pro Capitalism. Anti movement are jewish psyops destined to lose.

memetically

anti loses

captialism is a jewish idea and so is communism.

adam smith

what im saying is i run many propaganda outlets

anti ones always fail

The argument in order to allow citizens who, in a turbulent time, and under myriad stresses, have shown to have colossally, commonly awful coping mechanism, including physical assault. That the ordinary man, even one well trained with firearms, could not suffer an episode from one of a staggering list of mental or stress-induced illness, is just one of any number of instances where concealed carry will not help.

they built off of rage and rage rides a parabola

The seizure of firearms that I outlined before was, as well, an aggressive one, particularly of criminal property. They would be the first focus, followed by law-abiding citizens.

that's about it

The argument was inferring a man killing his family.

I wasn't clear enough, sorry

there's other formats

it's one rebuttal per constructive

nah, it's good

I feel like you left holes, as I'm sure you found in my argument, and I think that FLAnon's rebuttal was becoming a tangent toward the end, talking about aiding mental health

I feel like just doing the debate helped me understand it better though

it feels like it's shifting topics

constructive

nah, that wasn't for new content

just wanted to test y'all's chops

turtle is the only other classical liberal here

no in voice

me and him

him and me

minarchising in harmony

i like this one

I was just showing it off

I'm sitting one out