Wrap Battle

Lol you counter RM for me so I can hardly complain, I gotchu

Votes, imo, should reflect who did better in a debate, this includes on troll debates. On these debates it should be up to the individuals honour to justify their vote honestly. When they obviously do not do that - then I think it’s appropriate to mitigate with a CVB those votes until someone who is willing to express their vote more honestly can make the decision.

On a troll debate, you can vote however you want for almost any reason.

Ill vote soon

That is so weeeeeeeeird but ok lol it’s cool

To the best of my knowledge, counter bombing is allowed in troll debates. The bottom line is that it's unmoderated. The only hard exception I've seen was if there was a full forfeit and someone votes for the forfeiter.

I’m confused. If troll votes aren’t moderated, then there’s no such thing as a vote bomb, which means Ramshutu shouldn’t be able to vote for the reason that he did. Virtuoso specifically told someone else that he couldn’t counter vote because it was a troll debate, so why doesn’t the same rule apply here?

I don’t care if Ramshutu votes for Ralph (because he did awesome), but it should be because he wanted to, not because he’s counter vote bombing when that’s technically not allowed (as shown by Virtuoso refusing to do the same in a different troll debate)

Or is my understanding of this wrong

Thanks dude lol, I went up against Kvng from DDO a few times and he’s realllllyy good, so that’s how I got better, and you’re definitely the best (besides me of course, hehe)

Wow. This is a close debate.

Hey Speed.

I think you might be a rap titan bro. Votes aside. I underestimated you the first time we battled and looking back our battles are pretty epic. I think the only other people who can write at this caliber would be RM and Supadudz.

Sparrow/Type 1/(possibly also RM) might be up there with us, but it's hard to tell because his subject matter subjectively turns me off, so I'm biased towards his wraps. (note the inference that Sparrow/Type1/RM get ranked differently which shows a cognitive dissonance within the unholy trinity of Debart)

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro

>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Scott_Manning // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************

exactly

Ayyyyy thx dude

He always vote bombs against me, but the mods don’t care because it’s only on the troll debates :’(

lol. kudos to you. I never know which way he's going to vote on anything

The very first vote

I totally called the RM vote in Round 1 :D

It wasn’t praying lol but yeah I was iffy on that one, I knew I should have changed it

I meant to vote for you. The tongue in cheek "prayer" is disresepectful for a theist.

I think you voted for the wrong person that you wanted to. You can probably get the mods to delete it for you to change it.

which one?

Was that a salt vote? It looks salty,,,

Bump
u
m
p

I have plenty of evidence. Will make a debate.

It is wrap not rap.

Ask him. He has the burden of proving these claims that he made up and don't make it the first argument in Round 1 a forfeit and the last argument in Round 5 a forfeit. Simply have the first Round be opening arguments and the rest can be rebuttals.

>>There is no need to carry an automatic rifle in public because semi-auto's are enough.

What if they are carrying semi-automatics? Is that enough?

>>If in the wrong hands, and can cause a lot more deaths than semi-autos.

False. It depends on the magazine. A full-automatic glock is not as capable of murdering more compared to an Ar-15 because an Ar-15 has 30 more rounds and the glock has 15.

Did you just completely avoid my numbers?
1)Evidence of concealed carry stats.
2)Tell me how taking guns from people is wrong.
3)Evidence that criminals get their guns illegally.
4)Evidence of gun ban not working in England or Australia. I would rather compare these two.
5)Evidence that Hitler got into power because their were no guns for citizens.
Not really too much said about the 2nd amendment.

Imagine if you actually debated this, or discussed it on a forum, rather than generating comments on a Rap Battle.

There is no need to carry an automatic rifle in public because semi-auto's are enough. If in the wrong hands, and can cause a lot more deaths than semi-autos.

>>You can not carry around tanks in public. People normally don't get shot in their car. Guns are effective because they are easy to carry and a deterrent for criminals.

Not an argument against tanks. Automatic rifles are easy to carry and are deterrent to criminals. Are you for legalising automatic rifles?

>>Concealed-carry is a great idea because they are 84% more law-abiding than police officers. They are the most law-abiding group. Taking away the 2.5M DGU's a year for them is wrong. Why take away guns which would then prevent law-abiding owners to protect themselves. Criminals get their guns illegally most of the time and then you would have no way to defend yourself. Gun bans have not been effective in decreasing murder rate in places like Ireland, Jamaica, England, and Australia, to name a few main ones. Germany took away gun's in the 20's. Look what happened. A government tyranny where people weren't able to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny.

I can't take what you said here seriously. You make so much non-sequitur arguments to the aim of this entire paragraph which was concealed carry.
1)Evidence of concealed carry stats.
2)Tell me how taking guns from people is wrong.
3)Evidence that criminals get their guns illegally.
4)Evidence of gun ban not working in England or Australia. I would rather compare these two.
5)Evidence that Hitler got into power because their were no guns for citizens.
Not really too much said about the 2nd amendment.

>>Automatic guns are not legal for normal citizens, and I think it should stay that way. You can get a special permit for it though. So they are not fully illegal. I'm not for making them legal because if in the wrong hands it can be used to kill a lot more people than a semi-auto.

Not an argument against automatic rifles you just said "I think it should stay that way".

XD lol

"You can not carry around tanks in public. People normally don't get shot in their car. Guns are effective because they are easy to carry and a deterrent for criminals."

Tell that to Hank Pym. XD

You can not carry around tanks in public. People normally don't get shot in their car. Guns are effective because they are easy to carry and a deterrent for criminals.

Concealed-carry is a great idea because they are 84% more law-abiding than police officers. They are the most law-abiding group. Taking away the 2.5M DGU's a year for them is wrong. Why take away guns which would then prevent law-abiding owners to protect themselves. Criminals get their guns illegally most of the time and then you would have no way to defend yourself. Gun bans have not been effective in decreasing murder rate in places like Ireland, Jamaica, England, and Australia, to name a few main ones. Germany took away gun's in the 20's. Look what happened. A government tyranny where people weren't able to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment was designed to prevent government tyranny.

Automatic guns are not legal for normal citizens, and I think it should stay that way. You can get a special permit for it though. So they are not fully illegal. I'm not for making them legal because if in the wrong hands it can be used to kill a lot more people than a semi-auto.

Debate me on Vermont.

>>We have background checks.

Background checks for tanks. Still have yet to get an argument against tanks.

>>Guns are more sophisticated and more controlled. Tanks would kill innocent people.

No they are not. It depends on the user.

>>wym confused

Your question was confusing. What did you mean with that question?

>>It is very unlikely you will get attacked on the road. This isn't my primary argument, it is when you are in public not driving. What will you use when you are not in the tank and in public? A gun. What if you are in a church service? A gun. Btw you can own a tank in some states in the U.S, but they are not legal on roads.

Your argument don't make sense. You can't use a tank in public because they are illegal. So you advocate for having guns in Church? Saying tanks are legal in some states is not an argument against tanks.

>>You just proved tanks are slow. They can barely go 60 in a short amount of time. 25 is their typical speed.

What do you value more? Your life or speed?

>>My main argument is defending yourself in public. Not in a vehicle when you are driving. Your vehicle is enough to drive away or use as weapon itself.

Okay then are you for making automatic rifles legal?

>>What is cherry-picked? We won't get anywhere with the tanks. I am for concealed-carry in public so you can defend yourself in public. This has always been my primary argument.

I am not talking about this. I don't think you can read data or even understand cause and effect if you think Vermont is an example of concealed carry working if you mean by less crime or gun-related violence.

>>Yes and giving violent criminals more of an effective way of being violent.

We have background checks.

>>Mass killing can be done with a gun so not an argument against tanks.

Guns are more sophisticated and more controlled. Tanks would kill innocent people.

>>How do you know which one is the criminal with a gun?

wym confused

>>There are roads. You won't be using a tank on a pavement.

It is very unlikely you will get attacked on the road. This isn't my primary argument, it is when you are in public not driving. What will you use when you are not in the tank and in public? A gun. What if you are in a church service? A gun. Btw you can own a tank in some states in the U.S, but they are not legal on roads.

You just proved tanks are slow. They can barely go 60 in a short amount of time. 25 is their typical speed.

>>With a gun it would imply you are defending yourself. Still have yet to see an argument against tanks.

My main argument is defending yourself in public. Not in a vehicle when you are driving. Your vehicle is enough to drive away or use as weapon itself.

>>Carry on cherry-picking data to suite your narrative. I much rather stick to the topic at hand instead of what you are doing which is pivoting.

What is cherry-picked? We won't get anywhere with the tanks. I am for concealed-carry in public so you can defend yourself in public. This has always been my primary argument.

I think we all expected wrap recipes

I was hoping for wrap recipes. I'm disappointed.

>>Generally guns are more effective from deterring violent criminals than karate chops.

Yes and giving violent criminals more of an effective way of being violent.

>>This is silly. This would just be mass killing.

Mass killing can be done with a gun so not an argument against tanks.

>>How do you know which one is the criminal?

How do you know which one is the criminal with a gun?

>>How would this be effective when you are walking around public?

There are roads. You won't be using a tank on a pavement.

>>First, they are very slow. Ineffective transportation method.

"Believe it or not, tanks can actually move at about 25 miles per hour on flat terrain and up to 45 miles per hour on roads! Some tanks have even gone as fast as 60 to 70 miles per hour for short periods of time."
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-fast-can-a-tank-move
So basically you don't have an argument.

>>Plus this would imply you are only defending yourself from your car.

With a gun it would imply you are defending yourself. Still have yet to see an argument against tanks.

>>It does have evidence, what do you mean. Concealed-carry has everything to do with self-defense. So you concede. I want you to type you concede. Hypocrite LOL

This is a talking point of conservatives. I don't see the point of moving away from what this is about. Carry on cherry-picking data to suite your narrative. I much rather stick to the topic at hand instead of what you are doing which is pivoting.

Since that is your weird opinion, why suggest banning certain guns based on this since we don't know the numbers?

It is clear guns are very effective in deterring crime. 2.5 DGU's a year. In Vermont, the state where you don't even have to have a permit to carry, it is the safest state in the nation. As concealed carry has been going up by the thousand's a year, violent crime has dropped 50% during that time.

>>Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?

Generally guns are more effective from deterring violent criminals than karate chops.

>>If you justification is that it is ineffective is a lie. A tank can withstand a ton of damage while you being protected by it while also being capable of massive amounts of damage. It is extremely effective at keeping the user alive while also dealing massive amounts of damage. I want you to give me an argument against not making tanks legal.

This is silly. This would just be mass killing. How do you know which one is the criminal? How would this be effective when you are walking around public? What if you are an cashier at a store or bank?

>>Tanks are easier. Simply drive around in your tank. You don't need to put in a waistband.

First, they are very slow. Ineffective transportation method. Plus this would imply you are only defending yourself from your car.

>>I am not even going to argue against this because for one no evidence and for two it hasn't got anything to do with the argument at hand. Drop this and go back to defending guns by itself.

It does have evidence, what do you mean. Concealed-carry has everything to do with self-defense. So you concede. I want you to type you concede. Hypocrite LOL

>>OK, we won't anywhere with the guns kill people thing.

So you concede. I want you to type you concede on this point.

>>I'll stick with self-defense.

Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?

>>Tanks are justifiably illegal. You don't need a tank to defend yourself, and it would be extremely ineffective.

If you justification is that it is ineffective is a lie. A tank can withstand a ton of damage while you being protected by it while also being capable of massive amounts of damage. It is extremely effective at keeping the user alive while also dealing massive amounts of damage. I want you to give me an argument against not making tanks legal.

>>Guns are effective easy to defend yourself with. In concealed or open carry u typically carry a handgun on your waistband.

Tanks are easier. Simply drive around in your tank. You don't need to put in a waistband.

>>I am for legalizing concealed-carry in more places. Vermont has the most lax gun laws, you don't even need a permit to carry, but they are the safest state in the nation.

I am not even going to argue against this because for one no evidence and for two it hasn't got anything to do with the argument at hand. Drop this and go back to defending guns by itself.

"How else will you find data of how many actually saved lives?"

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

You're saying that you have X way to find data and if another way can't be found, then X stands. That's not how it works.

Either the data is good, or it's not. The absence of other data does not make your data better.

It could be the case that we can't get any data on it at all.

It's not just guessing like the flat earth. People know their situations and what the criminal was doing.

How else will you find data of how many actually saved lives? Survey's are the closest thing to it. 2.5 Million DGU's should be enough of a statistic that tells you guns save far more lives than they take.

I could say the same thing about the flat earthers of old or the doctors who were experts in their field but still didn't understand medicine.

Ad populum won't get you anywhere. Lose the surveys and come back with real data.

False equivalency.

Those people were in their situation and knew what would have happened if they hadn't used their gun defensively. The margin of error calculates for people who are wrong. I took the very low end of it. Do you really think 96% of people are wrong about their situation? Very unlikely. Think of what would have happened if they weren't able to defend themselves. That would be a lot of violent crime and murder.

Survey's are used to collect information on almost every subject. Saying survey's are invalid is a very poor argument because they are a fairly accurate representation of reality. This is just being foolish.

"It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument."

ad populum argument. Doesn't apply here.

100% of people used to think the earth was flat.

100% of doctors used to think that "hysteria" was a medical condition that made woman complain and prescribe vaginal stimulation as a cure which the doctor perform himself.

96% of nothing is still nothing.

U gonna respond to my comment?--

"The study was on all guns, you read it. Show me the source where it says the study was only on handguns.

3.) It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument."

Lol thanks, so did the closing the window one, I was trying to contain the laughter because I was in public when I read it xD

that elephant line made me laugh hard. No. It didn't come back. :(

Hopsin is a beast. But his newer stuff was underwhelming. I kind of agree with you about Eminem. He's a great rapper but as I study deeper into philosophy and grow as a person, his rhymes get more and more cringe worthy. I still keep the word play within me but eschew the ignorance that his raps bring.

Have you ever heard of Prozak? That's a good example of a rapper who gets by on good story telling. There's also that guy who tells stories from two different opposite view points respectively and juxtaposes them into his music video. I think his name is Joiner Lucas