WOW. Did you even read the rules before you signed up? Don't double-post! And nothing I said was irrelevant since you're going crazy about some little words he said that accurately described your "opinion". So looks like you lose again. [/b][/quote] I described my opinion several times about Mr. Moore. Then Mark comes along and shoots my opinion down. How does that work? My opinion is my opinion and I don't need someone else to tell me it's wrong.
1) I'd be outraged at the father for not storing the weapon in a proper place. The same thing could have happend if the child took some medicine that he thought was candy, brought it to school, shared with my hypothetical son, and they both die of an overdose. Gun control laws are fine. It's the parents who need to be responsible and keep them in safe places and teach their kids not to play with them. 2) You think I'm gratified because my friend died in this war? That's the most absurd thing you've said in this debate. The reason I brought that up was to say that I'm for the war no matter what happens to the people I love because I think both wars are for good reasons: a threat to our nation. 3) I am but you have to admit you're pretty aggressive and your boy Will just irrelevantly adds to the heat in our argument. [/b][/quote] The assault weapon probably should have been outlawed. I didn't mean a pistol, as I indicated. Secondly, funding could be passed by the government to promote education about gun violence. The boy could've been stopped if he had the right sources. Think outside the box. To not express outrage about the death of a loved one over a pointless war makes absolutely no sense. Saddam was NOT a threat because he had no WMDs, and there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, as said by the 9/11 commision. Unless you're some super sleuth who knows that the 9/11 commision is wrong because it conflicts with your views. You should probably do some research on your beloved Iraq war. Over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq have been killed because of your bastardous leader. Grow up, I'm not here to please you. Debating is debating, I'm not going to hold your hand here, and no one else will either. Take it, or stop complaining. I've been voted Best Debater here because my points are put across in a good way. Your inexperience in debating shows here, because you are not equipped for it. If you think your opinioin is just going to be agreed with by everyone here, you're way off base.
I described my opinion several times about Mr. Moore. Then Mark comes along and shoots my opinion down. How does that work? My opinion is my opinion and I don't need someone else to tell me it's wrong. [/b][/quote] As far as I can tell, he proved your opinion wrong by proving the facts you used wrong. I can't say that for sure since I'd have to go back and read through every argument, but that's what I can see, and you're freaking out because of that.
Look at how you just contradicted yourself. You just said he proved me wrong and then you said you haven't read the arguments! What is that about, Will?
Look at how you just contradicted yourself. You just said he proved me wrong and then you said you haven't read the arguments! What is that about, Will? [/b][/quote] I judged from all the reactions, and the fact that everyone agreed that he proved you wrong.
I judged from all the reactions, and the fact that everyone agreed that he proved you wrong. [/b][/quote] So basically you make your choice based on what you assume? I think I rephrased that quite nicely for you. And to Mark. Give me a break! Gun control programs?! Ever heard of D.A.R.E.? Yeah, we already have programs and they don't do shit for people in the long run. Although Iraq is not an extremely safe place in all areas, progress is being made. * School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. * Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur. * The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster. * The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August. * Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq. * The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. * 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war. * Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place. * Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. * Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. * Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. * Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers. * Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever. * Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. * An interim constitution has been signed. * Girls are allowed to attend school. * Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.
Not really. I wasn't even siding with anyone. I was backing up the fact that you were freaking out because he proved the facts that you based your opinions on wrong, and it was making you look very childish and big-headed. That's it, period.
Not really. I wasn't even siding with anyone. ...because you're the one who was proven wrong. [/b][/quote] There, you're siding with Mark. Don't give me that "I'm not siding with anyone" falseness, Will. You pretty much said, "Hey, I haven't read anything in here but Mark proved you wrong!"
There, you're siding with Mark. Don't give me that "I'm not siding with anyone" falseness, Will. You pretty much said, "Hey, I haven't read anything in here but Mark proved you wrong!" [/b][/quote] Once again, I wasn't siding with anyone. Based on what other people were saying, and based on the fact that you were overreacting, I made my statements. And if I did side with anyone, I wasn't trying to, because I don't like to do that, unless it has to do with how much I hate Bush. Heh.
WTF, this wasn't even an opinionated article -- it was just a news article, how can it be biased? Mr. Moore seems biased because all he does is shoot down Bush. I'd like to see him shoot down Kerry but for now, I'll agree he's biased. It's kind of like hardcore Linkin Park fans -- if the guys gave us a shitty album some of the fans would say "it rocks" regardless because of the strong attachment they have for them. In this case, Mr. Moore has a strong detachment from Bush. Get me? And to Will -- I apologize, I thought you were siding with Mark. I'd like to drop this argument because it really seems like we're going nowhere. Mark, I'm sorry for making such a big deal out of this.
I over-reacted as well, but I don't like seeing people over-react about something when there's a whole crew of people on one side saying one thing, while the other person is fighting a one-person battle that they can't win. I just try to slap some sense into them. Somehow.
Lets refer to Vampire's previous posts, in which he described how much more better Iraq is. Now, reading all those "facts and statistics", you would think everything was going spiffy in Iraq. But we all know thats not the complete picture at all. There is violence, dead U.S. soldiers who died without even knowing the real reason for attacking Iraq, and the offensive on Fallujah that President Bush just covieniently decided to take on after the presidential election. But you know what? Maybe all that Vampire said is still true. Maybe 4.5 million people really are getting clean water. Maybe 1,500 hundred schools really have been renovated. Maybe more kids really are getting education. However, maybe while he was telling us about those 15,000 schools, he was forgetting to tell us that 16,000 more schools have been destoryed since the war--I'm speaking hypothetically here. So facts themselves can't be biased, but they can be used to support a biased viewpoint. Micheal Moore blatantly does the same thing, only its the other way around. What I'm saying is that you can't avoid bias when its coming from a human being. Its very reckless to say one source is completely unbiased. Assuming you've read the dry history books at school, did you ever notice how watered down and sugar coated the history of the making of the Constiution and fight for independence are? Our history books say the forefathers wrote a declaration of independence with ideals like equality. Sounds groovy. But recently, I read an interesting lower class prespective on America's war for independece, and it was arguing how when the forefathers were writing "equality for all" they were basically talking about the rich Americans and their subordination to Britain, while speaking not as much about Native Americans, slaves, women and poor white folks without property. So if the history books that we're taught in school can be biased, so can Micheal Moore and anybody else. I think Bush is a despicable human, and I've been pretty depressed that this country would pick such a despicable liar to run the U.S. to the ground, but I acknowledge that the Democrat's or anybody's view--especially someone as passionate as Micheal Moore-- can be just as blindsided as the Conservative's view on the war. And Vampire--You think articles and newsources can't be biased because their from educated journalists and authorities? I think thats a very dangerous way of thinking. You have to dig deeper with articles, textbooks, and news stories. If you do, I guarantee you, you will find bias. Its just not going to be blatant and in your face, but dont let that fool you. I only know because I did an American Studies project in which we looked at various different new sources, school textbooks and news radio stations to detect the bias there. Otherwise I wouldn't have thought twice about it either. It was extremely thought-provoking and a little bit of a wake up call. @ everybody: I apologize for this obscenely long post.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. This is because females are being allowed to go to school, and boys aren't being forced to do manual labor. You know, that's not even double what it was before, and you know why? Tens of thousands of children were and still are being killed by American/coalition "smart bombs" and personnel. This could easily be 200-300% if all those children weren't dead. Now, you may say, "well, there wouldn't be an 80% increase without then US going in there!". Wrong. The entire UN could've gone in there if the US had given them the time. All of that would've been fixed, and the casualties would've been down much more. * Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur. Meanwhile, thousands of other schools have been destroyed by american bombing. Many of these 1600 schools are not adequately renovated as American contractors promised. * The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August. I wonder who that oil will trickle to. I could go on, but I'd rather not continue to waste my time on this. I just wanted to end this off with proper information.