All guns should be banned
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 31 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules of the debate:
1: The BoP is shared
2: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is a loss of conduct point.
Jamaica’s homicide rate in 1973, before the gun ban, was 11.5 per 100 000. In 1977, three years after the ban was enacted, murder rates nearly doubled to 19.5. By 1980 the homicide rate had nearly quadrupled to 41.7, and peaked at 59.0 per 100 000 people in 2007. In summary, after having banned civilian ownership of guns, Jamaica experienced a near-fourfold increase in its homicide rate within a period of only 6 years. And the homicide rate has remained exorbitantly high ever since.
Banning all guns is the most reasonable solution to gun violence because contrary to many gun-control advocates, it isn't possible for a society to determine which people can be trusted with guns.
This argument comes down to a moral decision, is the right to bear arms more important than the right to life? The answer is No.
There are non-lethal forms of self defense that can be used against criminals and guns are not a required to resist a tyrannical government
When I say all guns should be banned I am working with the assumption that all guns are confiscated from everyone, including criminals.
There are effective ways of confiscating all guns
there is no reason to believe that violence from guns won't be eliminated when all guns are removed.
Guns are not necessary for hunting so that is not a good reason not to ban them.
Pro offered a few traditional arguments with minimum effort and absolutely zero evidence to support some big claims. Con gave 4 solid supports on offense (hunting, protection, reduced rape and murder) and one well reasoned counter on defense (reduced gun violence). Combined with fair sourcing, Con's case dominates. Conduct to Con for Pro's double forfeit and tepid effort.
Pro believe that guns can be peacefully confiscated but as Con points out, criminals aren't going to be totally affected. Most firearms used in crime are unregistered, so it would be impossible to confiscate from criminals.
Cons argument that gun violence and crime overall have risen in places with gun bans is excellent proof that a ban won't work. Here, Con also gets sources.
Conduct to Con for the Forfeit.
Con efficiently explained how guns reduce homicide rates and protect from rape, which pro dropped both of those points. Con also refuted the point that other forms of self-defense than guns are useful. Con also said and refuted the point from pro by pointing out criminals will get guns either way, so if you ban them they will get it illegally. Con is the only one that sourced, and pro did not back up his claims with any sources and skipped over some of pro's arguments which were sourced. Congrats Alec for smashing another liberal.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Pros only argument appears to be that gun control is extreme - his opening round seemed to be an assertion that they should be banned rather than providing reasons. Likewise his own only other argument is that non lethal weapons can be used.
Cons argument is effectively built up of statistics, and arguing that banning weapons is counter productive. He also argues that non lethal alternatives are not sufficient for defense and to mitigate the harms of a ban.
Pro simply does not offer enough in his two generic and overly simplistic rounds to over turn these described harms, and thus arguments must be given to con too.
Con used sources to back up a somewhat troll angle of 'cops need guns' and rested on this being the primary way to attack banning guns for civilians. Pro didn't dismiss this or call it debating in bad faith, instead Pro says cops don't need lethal force. Con brought up a few scenarios where tasers won't be enough and also analysed the effect of guns on rape and homicide being lower. Pro never challenges these findings or trends.
Pro forfeited 2 Rounds and was all-around lazy. Therefore conduct goes to Con as well. Pro never used a source.
The instigator did not forfeit whereas the contender did.
The instigator provided sources for his arguments whereas the contender did not.
Neither side explained their point so I don't want to give the most convincing argument to either because one only gave claims while the other gave claims with evidence. Explanation is required in order for the reader to understand clearly what you are trying to say with your claim.
Pro FF 2 rounds which is poor conduct
>>Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.
Maybe this explains why you are bad at debating.
>>i just think you are a ok guy
In what way and what sources I are you basing your position about me on. I would like to know what other people think of me. Certainly from people who I hardly talk to so I understand how other people perceive me without directly speaking to me.
>>i do wonder if the first sentence was intentionally a detect insult.
It is based on seeing his debate about Fake News. Do see my vote in order to understand why I said that or read the debate and see for yourself.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/638
>>i do disagree with the fascist part because he is anti-nationalist. don't know if you - it or you keep it 2 words or what
I don't know what you mean here. Who is an anti-nationalist?
There was a reason that we were the world power facing the Soviet Union: we were wealthy and powerful. We were wealthy and powerful because of previous protectionist practices. BTW we still have thousands of tariffs like the sugar tariff and are still the largest economy in the world, so you're wrong?
I am not arguing for what Trump will do. If his tariffs don't shift money back to Americans, I won't support it. If a country puts a tariff on our cars, we should put tariffs of equal value of theirs. Don't let them take advantage of us.
Research the VA.....https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/16/477814218/attempted-fix-for-va-health-delays-creates-new-bureaucracy
https://www.military.com/militaryadvantage/2017/12/03/va-health-leaders-failed-protect-patients-inept-doctors.html
Stop trying to strawman. I'm not for zero immigration. I think it should be merit based. Only allow skilled laborers. My family immigrated at one point, and they helped build this country. Don't let people in who will go on welfare and won't contribute.
If doctors know best, why do they disagree with each other? They aren't omnipotent and infallible.
I said don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. Rape isn't sex. The woman had no choice in that. All abortions aren't justified by marginal cases. Less than 2% of abortions are because of rape. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/life-issues/dignity-of-human-life/abortion-statistics
If abortions because of rape and death of the mother are allowed, should the 98% of the rest be banned? Or, do you think killing babies at will is something we should keep? If you were aborted, you couldn't make this argument right now.
>>What do you like about me?
i just think you are a ok guy
this was what was in brakets
i do wonder if the first sentence was intentionally a detect insult. i do disagree with the fascist part because he is anti-nationalist. don't know if you - it or you keep it 2 words or what
>>while i do like omar as a person
What do you like about me?
>>i do dislike how he debates mostly for these reasons.
I didn't understand what you said afterwards. Can you remove the brackets?
>>You liberals are perpetual children that want the government to coddle you and tell you how to live your life while not wanting to take responsibility for your actions.
More insults. Really shows to show who the intolerable one is and can't defend his point.
>>If government healthcare is so good, how come the US is responsible for most new medical developments that these other countries all benefit from.
Shouldn't the priority of the United States be to helping its citizens before making new medical developments?
>>We don't fix our prices like those countries do, so people are given the incentive to innovate to make more money.
While also making sure the poor do not get the treatment they want.
>>They think that gender isn't biologically based**
No they don't.
>>Thank you :)
Your welcome. :(
>>It only began using free trade after WWII to economically boost pro-capitalist countries in the Cold War.
Yes capitalism made them economically the best not protectionism.
>>My views are not inconsistent because tariff revenue will allow us to lower income taxes, which gives people more freedom. Just a tradeoff.
Doesn't mean it will happen. Trump I am sure had a tax plan which most cut taxes for the higher-earners.
>>My empirical evidence that socialism sucks is that every country that has truly tried it has led to economic collapse. If you want to see government-run healthcare in America, check out the VA. Wait times are horrendous in Canada/UK.
Don't have say that I do without showing evidence. Really is a weird way you give an argument. When you realise your source is not properly sourced then you don't decide to correct it okay.
>>"Everyone is immigrants". I think you need to check out the definition of immigrant. I was born here with two American citizen parents.
At some point your ancestry can be traced backed to immigrants. Why are you not for immigration when you wouldn't be here if it was the case?
>>Immigrants should have to pay taxes for 5-10 years if they want something. We shouldn't allow people to come into our country as a public charge.
I am sure for an immigration to be a US citizen it would have to be hear for 4 year so why do you have a number to 5-10?
>>Yes, the abortion law would allow it for nearly every situation if you just go to the right doctor.
Why shouldn't it? The doctors knows best.
>>Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. If you happen to, deal with the consequences of your actions.
What if the woman was drug, rapped or not aware of what was taking place? Should the woman be allowed to abort?
continues...
They think that gender isn't biologically based**
Yes, call people anti-science without providing evidence. I'll add you to the list of scientifically/economically illiterate list. If you are so nuanced on climate change, tell me what exact percentage of the change is temperature is caused by humans and how much is natural. Then be sure to provide a reliable source proving what you said.
Thank you :)
> If it isn't a trash debater.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
It is not me who went past talking intellectually. It is the conservatives that started that.
while i do like omar as a person i do dislike how he debates mostly for these reasons. (i do wonder if the first sentence was intentionally a detect insult) i do disagree with the fascist part because he is anti-nationalist (don't know if you - it or you keep it 2 words or what)
Ok, the United States was almost always protectionist. It only began using free trade after WWII to economically boost pro-capitalist countries in the Cold War. Japan has always been protectionist over its car brands and they are making much larger profits than our country's. I think we should protect industries that we would collapse without in case of a trade war. My views are not inconsistent because tariff revenue will allow us to lower income taxes, which gives people more freedom. Just a tradeoff.
My empirical evidence that socialism sucks is that every country that has truly tried it has led to economic collapse. If you want to see government-run healthcare in America, check out the VA. Wait times are horrendous in Canada/UK.
"Everyone is immigrants". I think you need to check out the definition of immigrant. I was born here with two American citizen parents. I am not an immigrant. Immigrants should have to pay taxes for 5-10 years if they want something. We shouldn't allow people to come into our country as a public charge.
Yes, the abortion law would allow it for nearly every situation if you just go to the right doctor. If it would lead to the death of the mother, allow it. Otherwise, don't kill babies because it makes you anxious. Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. If you happen to, deal with the consequences of your actions. You liberals are perpetual children that want the government to coddle you and tell you how to live your life while not wanting to take responsibility for your actions. You can't kill people because you decided to be irresponsible.
If government healthcare is so good, how come the US is responsible for most new medical developments that these other countries all benefit from. They don't need to spend money on R&D. We don't fix our prices like those countries do, so people are given the incentive to innovate to make more money.
>>Who is the anti-intellectual now? You can't name ONE belief? You are saying this because this is based no where in reality. You can't even prove your position.
God is the basis of your beliefs. To say otherwise is to deny your belief in God. Since your political beliefs has to start from somewhere. I am saying your political positions are based on your belief in God. It is not anti-intellectual because you are Religious and that does dictate every aspect of your life even politics.
>>Conservatives can have an honest debate with some people on the other side who actually can do it intellectually as well. All this is is confirmation bias.
Conservatives are incapable of being intellectual so for you to say that is a lie. Clear example is that CNN is Fake News debate. Confirmation bias? Ironic coming from a conservative.
>>I want to do it on gun control, because I would like to shred you. If not, that's ok, I understand you just insult instead of using facts.
I think it would be a waste of my time. Are you afraid you can't win the immigration debate? You don't need to tell me I already know.
>>There are crazy people that believe in gender doesn't exist. You believe it does, I'm guessing?
Yes gender does exist and even the "crazy" people also believe that.
>>Religion isn't really provable or disprovable
When you define God it is open to criticism. If you say God is something or did something and you do not have to proof to prove it then God doesn't exist. The rational position is to disbelieve something in order for biases not impact the decision. Difficult for Religion for how much a part it can play.
>>Climate change is real. Everyone believes in climate change. You Lefties think it is caused almost entirely by humans. We believe that it is occurring, but we don't think humans are the main cause if we are a cause at all. It varies. I think we are playing a tiny part and it isn't an issue.
Guess I can add that you are anti-science to the list.
>>Free Trade: China is very protectionist and their GDP is growing rapidly. One-way free trade helps the protectionist country at the expense of the free trade country.
My argument was about the United States not China. So do tell me how the United States can do what China does. Aren't you against big government or are you inconsistent with your views?
>>Socialism failed(because central planning is always inefficient)
You are making the claim that is not supported by your link. It states dismantlement not because of socialism. Your link also has no evidence to support their side. Want to try again?
>>Not really an anarchist. Just think we should shift spending to more important things, spend less money, and we should reform and severely limit welfare. No welfare should be available for immigrants.
So a conservative. Problem here is that immigrants would be every single person in the United States. What if the immigrant is a legal citizen?
>>That is so general. Protect health? Protect her from the anxiety resulting in raising a child? Stress if bad for your health, so it is essentially allowing anything depending on the doctor.
Guess I can add conservatives don't like nuance or complicated situations. Yes doctors make the final call because they are knowledgeable on the field.
>>We'd have to have a full debate on immigration sometime to get anywhere with that. There are a few benefits, but they are outweighed by the negatives in my opinion.
Okay. Do tell me when you want to have it.
>>Small government is kind of subjective term. It is based off of the level of control government has over our lives: Do they allow us to choose our insurance provider? Can we choose what we do with our income, or do they tax some of it? That kind of thing
Okay. I much rather the government be in control of healthcare since it works in other developed countries.
Continues...
You don't need to be a genius to know that.
Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.
>>I don't think I need to because you already use Religion as a basis to do anything which includes Religion.
Who is the anti-intellectual now? You can't name ONE belief? You are saying this because this is based no where in reality. You can't even prove your position.
>>Conservatives are ant-intellectual. How many times do I need to say that?
That is your opinion. Conservatives can have an honest debate with some people on the other side who actually can do it intellectually as well. All this is is confirmation bias.
I want to do it on gun control, because I would like to shred you. If not, that's ok, I understand you just insult instead of using facts.
>>I copied everything you said and replaced it with liberals. Bop.
Why can't think for yourself?
What do you mean by Bop?
I think this omar guy has autism(or is a leftist, it is hard to tell the difference). Perhaps I should stop wasting my time on him.
I copied everything you said and replaced it with liberals. Bop.
>>Name one political belief I have based on religion.
I don't think I need to because you already use Religion as a basis to do anything which includes Religion.
>>You are proving my point! People on both sides can actually have an intellectual argument about both, but instead you don't do it intellectually.
Conservatives are ant-intellectual. How many times do I need to say that?
>>Let's debate on gun control. I'm sure I can have an honest debate with facts and completely disembowel your position.
I would rather it be about immigration. Gun control is boring.
Free Trade: China is very protectionist and their GDP is growing rapidly. One-way free trade helps the protectionist country at the expense of the free trade country.
Socialism failed(because central planning is always inefficient): https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/28/the-mismanagement-in-venezuela-part-of-its-socialist-system/
Not really an anarchist. Just think we should shift spending to more important things, spend less money, and we should reform and severely limit welfare. No welfare should be available for immigrants.
In response to your article "...or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health". That is so general. Protect health? Protect her from the anxiety resulting in raising a child? Stress if bad for your health, so it is essentially allowing anything depending on the doctor.
I shouldn't be allowed to kill you for convenience, so don't kill babies. Give them up for adoption, or deal with the consequences. You can't kill people because you don't know how to use a condom.
We'd have to have a full debate on immigration sometime to get anywhere with that. There are a few benefits, but they are outweighed by the negatives in my opinion.
Small government is kind of subjective term. It is based off of the level of control government has over our lives: Do they allow us to choose our insurance provider? Can we choose what we do with our income, or do they tax some of it? That kind of thing
There are crazy people that believe in gender doesn't exist. You believe it does, I'm guessing?
Religion isn't really provable or disprovable, so I'm not going to dive into that, really. Climate change is real. Everyone believes in climate change. You Lefties think it is caused almost entirely by humans. We believe that it is occurring, but we don't think humans are the main cause if we are a cause at all. It varies. I think we are playing a tiny part and it isn't an issue.
>>Democrats are the party of no religion
Is this supposed to be an insult? You failed.
>>which value feelings over facts
Ironic when a conservative is losing a debate because the facts prove otherwise. Do look at your CNN is Fake News debate if you want a reminder.
>>Cenk Uger a SJW socialist
You are an SJW for advocating for conservatism. Do tell me how I am wrong. Socialist is not an insult either so do try again.
>>made up the saying "google it" and uses that as his source for everything.
Yes I did see that. A blunder on his part but the facts don't lie. Cenk is right Ben is wrong but I do concede Ben from what I remember in that Politicon debate did a better job defending his side.
>>It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes.
It is conservatwats not liberals. Remember conservatives are anti-intellectual.
>>That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things.
Wow. Totally agree that conservatives don't agree when they are wrong.
>>It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
You are copying me. Wow. You really are un-original. Your profile is copied from someone else. You words are copied from me and your Religion is from your parents. Do you have a hint of originality or am I expecting too much from a conservative? Oh wait I already know the answer. Yes I am.
Let's debate on gun control. I'm sure I can have an honest debate with facts and completely disembowel your position.
Name one political belief I have based on religion.
>>The other side are anti-intellectual for believing in God and denying climate change.
You are proving my point! People on both sides can actually have an intellectual argument about both, but instead you don't do it intellectually.
Democrats are the party of no religion and which value feelings over facts which is ironic when Cenk Uger a SJW socialist made up the saying "google it" and uses that as his source for everything.
It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
If it isn't a trash debater.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
It is not me who went past talking intellectually. It is the conservatives that started that.
>>Omar, I don't know one conservative who argues on the basis of religion, so stop bringing religion up. If they do
Christianity tells you how to live your life. If you don't understand that guess you are d*mber than I thought.
>>politics shouldn't be argued from a political standpoint
Religion is used as a basis for their political beliefs.
>>The only one being irrational is the one who can't have an honest discussion with the other side.
The other side are anti-intellectual for believing in God and denying climate change.
>>Conservatives aren't the ones shouting down free speech and using violence against the other side.
No but they are the one lying about the facts. I rather have the facts than everyone have a platform for lies.
>>Conservatives advocate for intellectual discussion but prove the "tolerant left" isn't so tolerant.
Conservatives are anti-intellectual so it is ironic like your profile picture. Conservatives value feelings over facts which is why they believe in God.
It's not worth debating with omar. He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion. Omar, I don't know one conservative who argues on the basis of religion, so stop bringing religion up. If they do, I disagree because politics shouldn't be argued from a political standpoint. The only one being irrational is the one who can't have an honest discussion with the other side. Conservatives aren't the ones shouting down free speech and using violence against the other side. Conservatives advocate for intellectual discussion but prove the "tolerant left" isn't so tolerant.
>>Free trade hurts developed nations and helps developing nations due to the small labor costs.
The reason why the US is so big is because of free trade. They can exploit bad practices of developing countries like what Nike does with sweatshop workers and profit from that.
>>Don't even mention the mass starvation that results in socialist nations:Venezuela
Evidence and I would like it for Venezuela and do also find something that say because of socialism they are failing.
>>I am against taxes
An anarchist. Sheesh. Last one I spoke to was a complete annoyance. Hope you are not. So do you agree that taxation is a form of socialism?
>>NY's new abortion law
I urge you to read this: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
>>Abortion is the murder of a baby for the convenience of the mother.
Okay? So why shouldn't we allow the mother to do what is convenient with her life?
>>as you guys proclaim it is.
When did I "proclaim" this? Stop with the strawman.
>>Mass Immigration is good? You didn't provide evidence.
I think I would be wasting my time when you haven't even looked at seriously into the topic. You gave me source about welfare but didn't even more a source of immigration's impact on the economy and on jobs.
>>I'm sure you like it because the immigrants we are getting are overwhelmingly pro big government, anti-gun, etc.
Don't even know what small government is so I don't know what you are talking about to know where I stand.
>>Infinite genders
Who says this? I don't since you can't prove this to be the case.
>>You people have the audacity to call us anti-science.
Yes because of Religion and climate change.
I think a little protectionism is good for important industries. Free trade hurts developed nations and helps developing nations due to the small labor costs. We need to protect industries with a lot of potential like tech. Poor nations can make shirts for us and do low-skill labor. "Don't even mention wage stagnation.." Don't even mention the mass starvation that results in socialist nations:Venezuela, Soviet Union, etc. Sweden isn't socialist. Their markets are more free than ours:school vouchers/privatized pensions
I am against taxes, but I recognize their necessity. When the government gets enough tax revenues, they start spending on stupid new government programs like cricket teams in Afghanistan. The government should provide courts, police, military, and make investments(such as paying for school vouchers). The government shouldn't arbitrarily take income you earned at the threat of imprisonment. That is called theft.
In terms of killing babies, I would encourage you to look at NY's new abortion law that allows it up until birth. Virginia was very close to allowing abortions after death, with the bill being endorsed by their governor, Ralph Northam. I believe Maryland is passing similar laws. I was just stating that this isn't a fringe concept in the Democratic party now that entire states are pushing for this. Abortion is the murder of a baby for the convenience of the mother. It is not "her body", as you guys proclaim it is. It is completely different DNA.
Mass Immigration is good? You didn't provide evidence. I'm sure you like it because the immigrants we are getting are overwhelmingly pro big government, anti-gun, etc. More than half of immigrants are on some form of welfare. https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households
I could provide more examples if you wish
Infinite genders- The dumb LGBTQ3%$@!$ people and gender studies teach that gender is "on a spectrum". You people have the audacity to call us anti-science.
"Perhaps offer a few economic or social issues on which you find conservatives irrational."
Against free trade. In favour of trade wars. Against immigration. Don't even mention wage stagnation as a problem with capitalism.
"wanting socialism"
That would be progressives wanting socialism. Socialism can be done in various ways. This can be public healthcare and if I wanted to I can argue taxes is a form of socialism because it is a form of redistribution. So are you against taxes?
"killing babies(even after they are born)"
Who told you this lie? Abortion prevents a mother needing to take 18 years of her life away for a child. That is reason for aborting a baby.
"mass immigration"
Immigration is a good thing and if you don't think it is. Do provide evidence.
"infinite genders"
Where are you getting this from?
"All of those things make you feel good but are either evil or don't work. All of those are irrational"
I have stated none of them "feel" good but to conservatives I am sure it feels good to believe in God.
Perhaps offer a few economic or social issues on which you find conservatives irrational.
I think you liberals(leftists) are irrational for wanting socialism, killing babies(even after they are born), allow mass immigration, think there are infinite genders, etc. All of those things make you feel good but are either evil or don't work. All of those are irrational
>>I'm pretty sure that conservatives are rational.
No that is not true. They are the part of Religion and which value feelings over facts which is ironic when Ben Shapiro a conservative made up the saying facts don't care about your feelings.
>>You just disagree with them on a lot.
It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of them not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
I'm pretty sure that conservatives are rational. You just disagree with them on a lot.
Good joke. Applies to the irrational conservative as well. You can't lose your rationality when you never had it in the first place. If you did you wouldn't be a conservative.
You can't lose what you don't have.
I don't know if I can take losing anymore brain cells. Even if I entertain your arguments you just basically talk about something since you can't talk past the surface level. Keep being a free speech absolutist and allow the Unite the Right rally to exist and keep thinking Dave Rubin actually isn't a usefuly id*ot. It reallys does say how little you put in time into actually thinking about your position.
That guy has the right to say that. I don't agree with him though. Dave Rubin is open minded although he should argue more with his guests. He's definitely no idiot. Are you a fascist since you are willing to insult and censor those who disagree with you?
Are you calling Owen Benjamin a white nationalist?
Dave Rubin is an useful id*ot. So don't even bother. Last response.
His name is Owen Benjamin. See this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T5CLpWe8yCA
I am tired which is why I am being direct about this.
Is Dave Rubin a conservative because he tolerates conservatives on his show, but he's a classical liberal, which is basically a libertarian.
Yeah your a conservative. I can't stand Crowder for how wrong he his but if you can tolerate him then you are a conservative. Did you know he had a white nationalist on his show?
I would vote for Gary Johnson because I support him more then other candidates and I want others to vote for him so he can be president. If I am to ask this of people, I would have to vote for him too.
I watch more Louder with Crowder. This does not mean I agree with everything he says.
You asked me about my ideologies, and I can place a link showing where my ideologies are:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o4FS1cNhF_czuC6yKrVDK0ISVYoGMg1sZVacyxRo70k/edit
Why would you vote for someone who got won't get elected?
Who do you like more Steven Crowder or Noam Chomsky?
I don't know a really good right-wing philosopher but you can pick a right-wing philosopher or someone you agree with on the right in place of Steven Crowder.
I'm open to change my mind, but as of right now I would support Gary Johnson for President, although I'm not a libertarian on everything.
"Depends who the candidate. Maybe independent. "I don't care if he is a moderate" You were the one insisting he was conservative."
I care more about whether he aligns with the democrats or the republicans. Moderate doesn't tell me what kind of candidate he would vote for.
Depends who the candidate. Maybe independent. "I don't care if he is a moderate" You were the one insisting he was conservative.
Who would he support a right wing candidate or a left wing one?
I don't care if he is a moderate since that doesn't tell me who he would vote for apart from if he votes for shultz.
He is not a conservative like you claimed, he is a moderate.
So he still is a right winger.
What was your point?