Search is not available for this dataset
Unnamed: 0
int64 0
38.3k
| id
int64 8
10k
| q
stringlengths 5
13k
| r
stringlengths 3
35.3k
| s
stringclasses 2
values | q'
stringlengths 3
2.67k
| r'
stringlengths 3
6.78k
| Unnamed: 6
float64 | total no.: 7987
float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,979 | 533 |
"How many times have you spammed that argument super ? 10 ? 15 ? 20 times ? CB102 : Mutations adding information CB101.2 : Mutations and new features ."
|
"Another strawman . Explain to me how new information and new features equals to new structures and body parts . Those links have long been refuted http : //www.creationwiki.org/ ( Talk.Or ... dd_information http : //www.creationwiki.org/ ( Talk.Or ... e_new_features"
|
DISAGREE
|
"How many times have you spammed that argument super ? 10 ? 15 ? 20 times ? CB102 : Mutations adding information CB101.2 : Mutations and new features ."
|
"Explain to me how new information and new features equals to new structures and body parts ."
| null | null |
1,976 | 533 |
"How many times have you spammed that argument super ? 10 ? 15 ? 20 times ? CB102 : Mutations adding information CB101.2 : Mutations and new features ."
|
"Another strawman . Explain to me how new information and new features equals to new structures and body parts . Those links have long been refuted http : //www.creationwiki.org/ ( Talk.Or ... dd_information http : //www.creationwiki.org/ ( Talk.Or ... e_new_features"
|
DISAGREE
|
"How many times have you spammed that argument super ? 10 ? 15 ? 20 times ? CB102 : Mutations adding information CB101.2 : Mutations and new features ."
|
"Another strawman . Explain to me how new information and new features equals to new structures and body parts ."
| null | null |
1,985 | 534 |
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929 yet has been adopted as a rational theory by the scientific community as if they are a bunch of lemmings who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have . No one has developed a complete model of the universe that can describe all observations . That does n't make the model completely false , it just makes it incomplete . Back in the day , Newtonian physics was dominant . Then came Einstein 's Theory of General Relativity ( which is fascinating in discovering that space and time are one thing ) , and the Big Bang Theory which developed on top of that . There are problems with General Relativity , which breaks down the closer the model gets to the actual moments of the beginning of the universe . I 'm going to say it again : the model is n't wrong , its incomplete . Models get replaced by better models that better fit our observations . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works , it does n't make any predictions as to what was responsible for setting these events in motion ."
|
AGREE
|
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929"
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have"
| null | null |
1,984 | 534 |
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929 yet has been adopted as a rational theory by the scientific community as if they are a bunch of lemmings who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have . No one has developed a complete model of the universe that can describe all observations . That does n't make the model completely false , it just makes it incomplete . Back in the day , Newtonian physics was dominant . Then came Einstein 's Theory of General Relativity ( which is fascinating in discovering that space and time are one thing ) , and the Big Bang Theory which developed on top of that . There are problems with General Relativity , which breaks down the closer the model gets to the actual moments of the beginning of the universe . I 'm going to say it again : the model is n't wrong , its incomplete . Models get replaced by better models that better fit our observations . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works , it does n't make any predictions as to what was responsible for setting these events in motion ."
|
AGREE
|
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929"
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have ."
| null | null |
1,983 | 534 |
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929 yet has been adopted as a rational theory by the scientific community as if they are a bunch of lemmings who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have . No one has developed a complete model of the universe that can describe all observations . That does n't make the model completely false , it just makes it incomplete . Back in the day , Newtonian physics was dominant . Then came Einstein 's Theory of General Relativity ( which is fascinating in discovering that space and time are one thing ) , and the Big Bang Theory which developed on top of that . There are problems with General Relativity , which breaks down the closer the model gets to the actual moments of the beginning of the universe . I 'm going to say it again : the model is n't wrong , its incomplete . Models get replaced by better models that better fit our observations . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works , it does n't make any predictions as to what was responsible for setting these events in motion ."
|
AGREE
|
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929 yet has been adopted as a rational theory by the scientific community as if they are a bunch of lemmings who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have . No one has developed a complete model of the universe that can describe all observations ."
| null | null |
1,982 | 534 |
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929 yet has been adopted as a rational theory by the scientific community as if they are a bunch of lemmings who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have . No one has developed a complete model of the universe that can describe all observations . That does n't make the model completely false , it just makes it incomplete . Back in the day , Newtonian physics was dominant . Then came Einstein 's Theory of General Relativity ( which is fascinating in discovering that space and time are one thing ) , and the Big Bang Theory which developed on top of that . There are problems with General Relativity , which breaks down the closer the model gets to the actual moments of the beginning of the universe . I 'm going to say it again : the model is n't wrong , its incomplete . Models get replaced by better models that better fit our observations . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works , it does n't make any predictions as to what was responsible for setting these events in motion ."
|
AGREE
|
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929"
|
"Models get replaced by better models that better fit our observations . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works , it does n't make any predictions as to what was responsible for setting these events in motion ."
| null | null |
1,981 | 534 |
"This theory is made up of nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist back in 1929 yet has been adopted as a rational theory by the scientific community as if they are a bunch of lemmings who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"The big bang theory actually describes the universe very well and is the best working model we have . No one has developed a complete model of the universe that can describe all observations . That does n't make the model completely false , it just makes it incomplete . Back in the day , Newtonian physics was dominant . Then came Einstein 's Theory of General Relativity ( which is fascinating in discovering that space and time are one thing ) , and the Big Bang Theory which developed on top of that . There are problems with General Relativity , which breaks down the closer the model gets to the actual moments of the beginning of the universe . I 'm going to say it again : the model is n't wrong , its incomplete . Models get replaced by better models that better fit our observations . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works , it does n't make any predictions as to what was responsible for setting these events in motion ."
|
AGREE
|
"This theory is made up nothing more than the imaginings of a young cosmologist who will grasp at any explanation which does n't claim that God did it ."
|
"big bang theory actually describes the universe very well is the best working model we have does n't make the model completely false , it just makes it incomplete . Big Bang merely describes the way the universe works"
| null | null |
1,989 | 535 |
"However , ever since he ( Chuz ) started a thread attempting to convince others of this 'fact ' , he has consistently ignored the vast majority of arguments against his reasoning - while continuing to tout the 'fact ' in other threads ."
|
"I 'm not sure what thread or posts you are talking about , IANGB . But If you are talking about posts where I invited you to start a challenger 's corner debate , ... here we are ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"However , ever since he ( Chuz ) started a thread attempting to convince others of this 'fact"
|
"If you are talking about posts where I invited you to start a challenger 's corner debate , ... here we are ."
| null | null |
1,986 | 535 |
"However , ever since he ( Chuz ) started a thread attempting to convince others of this 'fact ' , he has consistently ignored the vast majority of arguments against his reasoning - while continuing to tout the 'fact ' in other threads ."
|
"I 'm not sure what thread or posts you are talking about , IANGB . But If you are talking about posts where I invited you to start a challenger 's corner debate , ... here we are ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"ever since he ( Chuz ) started a thread attempting to convince others of this 'fact ' , he has consistently ignored the vast majority of arguments against his reasoning"
|
"But If you are talking about posts where I invited you to start a challenger 's corner debate"
| null | null |
1,990 | 535 |
"However , ever since he ( Chuz ) started a thread attempting to convince others of this 'fact ' , he has consistently ignored the vast majority of arguments against his reasoning - while continuing to tout the 'fact ' in other threads ."
|
"I 'm not sure what thread or posts you are talking about , IANGB . But If you are talking about posts where I invited you to start a challenger 's corner debate , ... here we are ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"he has consistently ignored the vast majority of arguments against his reasoning continuing to tout the 'fact ' in other threads ."
|
"not sure what thread or posts you are talking about ,"
| null | null |
1,993 | 536 |
"as in anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"As in anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
|
AGREE
|
"as in anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"As in anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
| null | null |
1,994 | 536 |
"as in anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"As in anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
|
AGREE
|
"as in anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check"
|
"As in anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
| null | null |
1,991 | 536 |
"as in anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"As in anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
|
AGREE
|
"anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"anyone who can legally own a firearm be able to carry it without needing permission ."
| null | null |
1,992 | 536 |
"as in anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"As in anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
|
AGREE
|
"anyone can purchase a fire arm without a background check or gun safety training ?"
|
"anyone who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it without needing permission ."
| null | null |
1,999 | 537 |
"Again , you are the affirmative , you must support your claims . Please support the claim that we are using an atheist presupposition . I think we are using more an agnostic presupposition , which is a neutral one ."
|
"Neutral ? One of the main standards and reference points for science and evolution on the internet is talkorigins.org . It 's promoted as an educational site - a place with answers to criticisms of the evolutionary theory . It 's every bit as biased as AnswersinGenesis , yet in many cases it 's difficult for ID proponents to target . Part of the broad definition of evolution is microevolution , about the only segment of the broad term that is provable . They can masterfully employ that to make an ID proponent appear uninformed or irrational if he questions happenstance orignis , or other unproven evolutionary assumptions . They make their atheism clear in many ways however . They devote a page to comment about the `` International Flat Earth Society `` , pretending they believe it to be a legitimate site . Almost any rational adult can see that it 's phony . ( Wikopedia calls it a hoax ) There 's nothing neutral , or even agnostic , about that site , and it appears to represent the anti-ID-in-schools mindset to a T. If there 's actually a more neutral , agnostic , scientific website that opposes ID being taught in schools , I 'd like to see it ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"you are the affirmative , you must support your claims I think we are using more an agnostic presupposition , which is a neutral one ."
|
"Neutral ? There 's nothing neutral , or even agnostic"
| null | null |
1,997 | 537 |
"Again , you are the affirmative , you must support your claims . Please support the claim that we are using an atheist presupposition . I think we are using more an agnostic presupposition , which is a neutral one ."
|
"Neutral ? One of the main standards and reference points for science and evolution on the internet is talkorigins.org . It 's promoted as an educational site - a place with answers to criticisms of the evolutionary theory . It 's every bit as biased as AnswersinGenesis , yet in many cases it 's difficult for ID proponents to target . Part of the broad definition of evolution is microevolution , about the only segment of the broad term that is provable . They can masterfully employ that to make an ID proponent appear uninformed or irrational if he questions happenstance orignis , or other unproven evolutionary assumptions . They make their atheism clear in many ways however . They devote a page to comment about the `` International Flat Earth Society `` , pretending they believe it to be a legitimate site . Almost any rational adult can see that it 's phony . ( Wikopedia calls it a hoax ) There 's nothing neutral , or even agnostic , about that site , and it appears to represent the anti-ID-in-schools mindset to a T. If there 's actually a more neutral , agnostic , scientific website that opposes ID being taught in schools , I 'd like to see it ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"the . that agnostic a neutral"
|
"is . an a , neutral agnostic more I"
| null | null |
2,000 | 537 |
"Again , you are the affirmative , you must support your claims . Please support the claim that we are using an atheist presupposition . I think we are using more an agnostic presupposition , which is a neutral one ."
|
"Neutral ? One of the main standards and reference points for science and evolution on the internet is talkorigins.org . It 's promoted as an educational site - a place with answers to criticisms of the evolutionary theory . It 's every bit as biased as AnswersinGenesis , yet in many cases it 's difficult for ID proponents to target . Part of the broad definition of evolution is microevolution , about the only segment of the broad term that is provable . They can masterfully employ that to make an ID proponent appear uninformed or irrational if he questions happenstance orignis , or other unproven evolutionary assumptions . They make their atheism clear in many ways however . They devote a page to comment about the `` International Flat Earth Society `` , pretending they believe it to be a legitimate site . Almost any rational adult can see that it 's phony . ( Wikopedia calls it a hoax ) There 's nothing neutral , or even agnostic , about that site , and it appears to represent the anti-ID-in-schools mindset to a T. If there 's actually a more neutral , agnostic , scientific website that opposes ID being taught in schools , I 'd like to see it ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Please support the claim that we are using an atheist presupposition"
|
"One of the main standards and reference points for science and evolution on the internet is talkorigins.org ."
| null | null |
2,003 | 538 |
"as far as science is concerned , religion was science 's biggest proponent . in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective . you can say that `` creationist science `` was what science came from"
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order and was put into a polytheistic context . Then Aristotle came along and gave us `` emprical `` thought . When christianity rolled onto the scene , most `` science `` of those first 1700 years ( mostly things like astrology and alchemy ) were seen as witchcraft and such and was persecuted . Maybe you mean the early days of modern science , starting around the enlightenment period . This was the time of a rise in secular humanism and science was largely an extension of that philosophy . They used to just call it `` natural philosophy `` and it was usually at odds with church doctrine . There are , of course , exceptions to this , but on the whole science was not favored by the church . So any `` creation science `` going on was just a bunch of theologians arguing . ( actually I do remember reading about late 18th century geologists trying to fit what they found , including fossils , into a Biblical Noah 's Ark context , and then they eventually had to scrap it because things stopped fitting , and quite often ) http : //www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM I thought this was a pretty interesting page . I never knew all those common chemistry words came from arabic ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"religion was science 's biggest proponent . everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective creationist science `` was what science came from"
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order a rise in secular humanism and science was largely an extension of that philosophy . used to just call it `` natural philosophy ``"
| null | null |
2,005 | 538 |
"as far as science is concerned , religion was science 's biggest proponent . in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective . you can say that `` creationist science `` was what science came from"
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order and was put into a polytheistic context . Then Aristotle came along and gave us `` emprical `` thought . When christianity rolled onto the scene , most `` science `` of those first 1700 years ( mostly things like astrology and alchemy ) were seen as witchcraft and such and was persecuted . Maybe you mean the early days of modern science , starting around the enlightenment period . This was the time of a rise in secular humanism and science was largely an extension of that philosophy . They used to just call it `` natural philosophy `` and it was usually at odds with church doctrine . There are , of course , exceptions to this , but on the whole science was not favored by the church . So any `` creation science `` going on was just a bunch of theologians arguing . ( actually I do remember reading about late 18th century geologists trying to fit what they found , including fossils , into a Biblical Noah 's Ark context , and then they eventually had to scrap it because things stopped fitting , and quite often ) http : //www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM I thought this was a pretty interesting page . I never knew all those common chemistry words came from arabic ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective ."
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order and was put into a polytheistic context"
| null | null |
2,004 | 538 |
"as far as science is concerned , religion was science 's biggest proponent . in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective . you can say that `` creationist science `` was what science came from"
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order and was put into a polytheistic context . Then Aristotle came along and gave us `` emprical `` thought . When christianity rolled onto the scene , most `` science `` of those first 1700 years ( mostly things like astrology and alchemy ) were seen as witchcraft and such and was persecuted . Maybe you mean the early days of modern science , starting around the enlightenment period . This was the time of a rise in secular humanism and science was largely an extension of that philosophy . They used to just call it `` natural philosophy `` and it was usually at odds with church doctrine . There are , of course , exceptions to this , but on the whole science was not favored by the church . So any `` creation science `` going on was just a bunch of theologians arguing . ( actually I do remember reading about late 18th century geologists trying to fit what they found , including fossils , into a Biblical Noah 's Ark context , and then they eventually had to scrap it because things stopped fitting , and quite often ) http : //www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM I thought this was a pretty interesting page . I never knew all those common chemistry words came from arabic ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"as far as science is concerned , religion was science 's biggest proponent . in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective . you can say that `` creationist science `` was what science came from"
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order and was put into a polytheistic context ."
| null | null |
2,002 | 538 |
"as far as science is concerned , religion was science 's biggest proponent . in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective . you can say that `` creationist science `` was what science came from"
|
"What early days are you talking about ? In ancient Greece , everything was about logic and order and was put into a polytheistic context . Then Aristotle came along and gave us `` emprical `` thought . When christianity rolled onto the scene , most `` science `` of those first 1700 years ( mostly things like astrology and alchemy ) were seen as witchcraft and such and was persecuted . Maybe you mean the early days of modern science , starting around the enlightenment period . This was the time of a rise in secular humanism and science was largely an extension of that philosophy . They used to just call it `` natural philosophy `` and it was usually at odds with church doctrine . There are , of course , exceptions to this , but on the whole science was not favored by the church . So any `` creation science `` going on was just a bunch of theologians arguing . ( actually I do remember reading about late 18th century geologists trying to fit what they found , including fossils , into a Biblical Noah 's Ark context , and then they eventually had to scrap it because things stopped fitting , and quite often ) http : //www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM I thought this was a pretty interesting page . I never knew all those common chemistry words came from arabic ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"as far as science is concerned , religion was science 's biggest proponent . in the early days everything in science was viewed from a creationist perspective ."
|
"This was the time of a rise in secular humanism and science was largely an extension of that philosophy . They used to just call it `` natural philosophy `` and it was usually at odds with church doctrine . There are , of course , exceptions to this , but on the whole science was not favored by the church . So any `` creation science `` going on was just a bunch of theologians arguing"
| null | null |
2,009 | 539 |
"* * * Yawn * * * revisionist history ... Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus , the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law . 2 . Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths . The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that , `` An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link—the significant rise of murder in the late 1960 's , and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980 's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population . This age group is the most violent one , as well as the group most likely to be victimized—and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks . '' 173 ( Emphasis added . ) 3 . According to the Clinton Justice Department , crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased . The Bureau of Justice Statistics , the research arm of the Justice Department , reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10 % during a recent five-year period , gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33 % .174 4 . Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them . According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992 , states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5 % , rapes by 5 % , aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3 % .175"
|
"BS . Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better . Your own words condemn you"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991"
|
"Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better ."
| null | null |
2,010 | 539 |
"* * * Yawn * * * revisionist history ... Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus , the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law . 2 . Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths . The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that , `` An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link—the significant rise of murder in the late 1960 's , and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980 's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population . This age group is the most violent one , as well as the group most likely to be victimized—and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks . '' 173 ( Emphasis added . ) 3 . According to the Clinton Justice Department , crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased . The Bureau of Justice Statistics , the research arm of the Justice Department , reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10 % during a recent five-year period , gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33 % .174 4 . Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them . According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992 , states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5 % , rapes by 5 % , aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3 % .175"
|
"BS . Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better . Your own words condemn you"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed ."
|
"Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better ."
| null | null |
2,008 | 539 |
"* * * Yawn * * * revisionist history ... Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus , the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law . 2 . Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths . The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that , `` An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link—the significant rise of murder in the late 1960 's , and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980 's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population . This age group is the most violent one , as well as the group most likely to be victimized—and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks . '' 173 ( Emphasis added . ) 3 . According to the Clinton Justice Department , crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased . The Bureau of Justice Statistics , the research arm of the Justice Department , reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10 % during a recent five-year period , gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33 % .174 4 . Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them . According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992 , states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5 % , rapes by 5 % , aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3 % .175"
|
"BS . Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better . Your own words condemn you"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus , the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law"
|
"The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better ."
| null | null |
2,006 | 539 |
"* * * Yawn * * * revisionist history ... Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus , the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law . 2 . Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths . The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that , `` An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link—the significant rise of murder in the late 1960 's , and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980 's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population . This age group is the most violent one , as well as the group most likely to be victimized—and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks . '' 173 ( Emphasis added . ) 3 . According to the Clinton Justice Department , crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased . The Bureau of Justice Statistics , the research arm of the Justice Department , reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10 % during a recent five-year period , gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33 % .174 4 . Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them . According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992 , states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5 % , rapes by 5 % , aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3 % .175"
|
"BS . Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better . Your own words condemn you"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991 . ''"
|
"BS . Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better"
| null | null |
2,007 | 539 |
"* * * Yawn * * * revisionist history ... Well here are the facts from http : //www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm : D. Myth # 4 : Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate . 1 . Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed . Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus , the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law . 2 . Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths . The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that , `` An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link—the significant rise of murder in the late 1960 's , and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980 's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population . This age group is the most violent one , as well as the group most likely to be victimized—and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks . '' 173 ( Emphasis added . ) 3 . According to the Clinton Justice Department , crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased . The Bureau of Justice Statistics , the research arm of the Justice Department , reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10 % during a recent five-year period , gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33 % .174 4 . Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them . According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992 , states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5 % , rapes by 5 % , aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3 % .175"
|
"BS . Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data so it is probably skewed to make themselves look better . Your own words condemn you"
|
DISAGREE
|
"the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 from 1977 to 1992 , states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5 % , rapes by 5 % and robbery by 3 %"
|
"BS Where is the raw data ... The link you show is from www.gunowners.org over there and does not give links to the raw data it is probably skewed to make themselves look better"
| null | null |
2,012 | 540 |
"Thought of the Day : Can anyone conceivably conceptualize the irony of the pregnancy of a woman is called 'conception ' ? Conceptually , it is conceived that present tense of this conception is to conceive a child . I am curious as to know whether or not conceive and concept are participles or perhaps conjugations of a single word or are they two different words used interchangably . I am doubly curious to know as to how pregnancy came about as being conceived as conceptual ?"
|
"con·ceive ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( kn-sv ) v. con·ceived , con·ceiv·ing , con·ceives v. tr . To become pregnant with ( offspring ) . To form or develop in the mind ; devise : conceive a plan to increase profits . To apprehend mentally ; understand : could n't conceive the meaning of that sentence . To be of the opinion that ; think : did n't conceive such a tragedy could occur . To begin or originate in a specific way : a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s . con·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( knspt ) n. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences . Something formed in the mind ; a thought or notion . See Synonyms at idea . A scheme ; a plan :  “ began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept ” ( ADWEEK ) . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ Late Latin conceptus , from Latin , past participle of concipere , to conceive . See conceive . ] It takes quite a man to use a message board to learn how to use a dictionary . Pregnancy is factual , it is the way one might react to it that is conceptual . Perhaps you need a little insight into how your perceptions might alter your concept ..... but insight is one thing I can not give you much to my dismay"
|
DISAGREE
|
"I am doubly curious to know as to how pregnancy came about as being conceived as conceptual ?"
|
"Pregnancy is factual , it is the way one might react to it that is conceptual . but insight is one thing I can not give you much to my dismay"
| null | null |
2,011 | 540 |
"Thought of the Day : Can anyone conceivably conceptualize the irony of the pregnancy of a woman is called 'conception ' ? Conceptually , it is conceived that present tense of this conception is to conceive a child . I am curious as to know whether or not conceive and concept are participles or perhaps conjugations of a single word or are they two different words used interchangably . I am doubly curious to know as to how pregnancy came about as being conceived as conceptual ?"
|
"con·ceive ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( kn-sv ) v. con·ceived , con·ceiv·ing , con·ceives v. tr . To become pregnant with ( offspring ) . To form or develop in the mind ; devise : conceive a plan to increase profits . To apprehend mentally ; understand : could n't conceive the meaning of that sentence . To be of the opinion that ; think : did n't conceive such a tragedy could occur . To begin or originate in a specific way : a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s . con·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( knspt ) n. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences . Something formed in the mind ; a thought or notion . See Synonyms at idea . A scheme ; a plan :  “ began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept ” ( ADWEEK ) . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ Late Latin conceptus , from Latin , past participle of concipere , to conceive . See conceive . ] It takes quite a man to use a message board to learn how to use a dictionary . Pregnancy is factual , it is the way one might react to it that is conceptual . Perhaps you need a little insight into how your perceptions might alter your concept ..... but insight is one thing I can not give you much to my dismay"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Can anyone conceivably conceptualize the irony of the pregnancy of a woman is called 'conception ' ?"
|
"but insight is one thing I can not give you much to my dismay"
| null | null |
2,013 | 540 |
"Thought of the Day : Can anyone conceivably conceptualize the irony of the pregnancy of a woman is called 'conception ' ? Conceptually , it is conceived that present tense of this conception is to conceive a child . I am curious as to know whether or not conceive and concept are participles or perhaps conjugations of a single word or are they two different words used interchangably . I am doubly curious to know as to how pregnancy came about as being conceived as conceptual ?"
|
"con·ceive ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( kn-sv ) v. con·ceived , con·ceiv·ing , con·ceives v. tr . To become pregnant with ( offspring ) . To form or develop in the mind ; devise : conceive a plan to increase profits . To apprehend mentally ; understand : could n't conceive the meaning of that sentence . To be of the opinion that ; think : did n't conceive such a tragedy could occur . To begin or originate in a specific way : a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s . con·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( knspt ) n. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences . Something formed in the mind ; a thought or notion . See Synonyms at idea . A scheme ; a plan :  “ began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept ” ( ADWEEK ) . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ Late Latin conceptus , from Latin , past participle of concipere , to conceive . See conceive . ] It takes quite a man to use a message board to learn how to use a dictionary . Pregnancy is factual , it is the way one might react to it that is conceptual . Perhaps you need a little insight into how your perceptions might alter your concept ..... but insight is one thing I can not give you much to my dismay"
|
DISAGREE
|
"I am doubly curious to know as to how pregnancy came about as being conceived as conceptual ?"
|
"Pregnancy is factual , it is the way one might react to it that is conceptual ."
| null | null |
2,014 | 540 |
"Thought of the Day : Can anyone conceivably conceptualize the irony of the pregnancy of a woman is called 'conception ' ? Conceptually , it is conceived that present tense of this conception is to conceive a child . I am curious as to know whether or not conceive and concept are participles or perhaps conjugations of a single word or are they two different words used interchangably . I am doubly curious to know as to how pregnancy came about as being conceived as conceptual ?"
|
"con·ceive ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( kn-sv ) v. con·ceived , con·ceiv·ing , con·ceives v. tr . To become pregnant with ( offspring ) . To form or develop in the mind ; devise : conceive a plan to increase profits . To apprehend mentally ; understand : could n't conceive the meaning of that sentence . To be of the opinion that ; think : did n't conceive such a tragedy could occur . To begin or originate in a specific way : a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s . con·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( knspt ) n. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences . Something formed in the mind ; a thought or notion . See Synonyms at idea . A scheme ; a plan :  “ began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept ” ( ADWEEK ) . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ Late Latin conceptus , from Latin , past participle of concipere , to conceive . See conceive . ] It takes quite a man to use a message board to learn how to use a dictionary . Pregnancy is factual , it is the way one might react to it that is conceptual . Perhaps you need a little insight into how your perceptions might alter your concept ..... but insight is one thing I can not give you much to my dismay"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Can anyone conceivably conceptualize the irony of the pregnancy of a woman is called 'conception"
|
"To form or develop in the mind ; devise : conceive a plan to increase profits ."
| null | null |
2,016 | 541 |
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing . There are 294,905,636 people in America , courtesy of the US Census Bureau , and 250,000 letters , while being a paltry amount , can also be duplicated easily by the use of spam programs . Using the exact same letter wo n't work . -BMA"
|
"Correct . Form letters go in a junk pile . Individual letters are a different matter ."
|
AGREE
|
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing ."
|
"Correct . Form letters go in a junk pile ."
| null | null |
2,018 | 541 |
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing . There are 294,905,636 people in America , courtesy of the US Census Bureau , and 250,000 letters , while being a paltry amount , can also be duplicated easily by the use of spam programs . Using the exact same letter wo n't work . -BMA"
|
"Correct . Form letters go in a junk pile . Individual letters are a different matter ."
|
AGREE
|
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing ."
|
"Form letters go in a junk pile . Individual letters are a different matter ."
| null | null |
2,017 | 541 |
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing . There are 294,905,636 people in America , courtesy of the US Census Bureau , and 250,000 letters , while being a paltry amount , can also be duplicated easily by the use of spam programs . Using the exact same letter wo n't work . -BMA"
|
"Correct . Form letters go in a junk pile . Individual letters are a different matter ."
|
AGREE
|
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing ."
|
"Correct ."
| null | null |
2,015 | 541 |
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing . There are 294,905,636 people in America , courtesy of the US Census Bureau , and 250,000 letters , while being a paltry amount , can also be duplicated easily by the use of spam programs . Using the exact same letter wo n't work . -BMA"
|
"Correct . Form letters go in a junk pile . Individual letters are a different matter ."
|
AGREE
|
"The President can easily ignore 250,000 letters all stating the exact same thing ."
|
"Correct . Form letters go in a junk pile ."
| null | null |
2,022 | 542 |
"See the difference is Neanderthals , and I have n't been able to get to this on here , lived longer than we do .... or at least had that potential . This is proven , ironically , by their teeth . Seems their molars erupted much later than ours do , which indicates that they matured much slower ..... thus their bones would have remained softer for much longer periods of time than ours do ."
|
"Support your assertion with peer-reviewed , scientific articles . Hell , you still need to support your assertion that soft bones make for `` phenotypic `` plasticity . Again , real scientists require evidence from research , or articles describing such evidence and research ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"the difference is Neanderthals , and I have n't been able to get to this on here , lived longer than we do .... or at least had that potential ."
|
"you still need to support your assertion that soft bones make for `` phenotypic `` plasticity"
| null | null |
2,020 | 542 |
"See the difference is Neanderthals , and I have n't been able to get to this on here , lived longer than we do .... or at least had that potential . This is proven , ironically , by their teeth . Seems their molars erupted much later than ours do , which indicates that they matured much slower ..... thus their bones would have remained softer for much longer periods of time than ours do ."
|
"Support your assertion with peer-reviewed , scientific articles . Hell , you still need to support your assertion that soft bones make for `` phenotypic `` plasticity . Again , real scientists require evidence from research , or articles describing such evidence and research ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"This is proven , ironically , by their teeth . Seems their molars erupted much later than ours do , which indicates that they matured much slower"
|
"Support your assertion with peer-reviewed , scientific articles . Hell , you still need to support your assertion that soft bones make for `` phenotypic `` plasticity ."
| null | null |
2,019 | 542 |
"See the difference is Neanderthals , and I have n't been able to get to this on here , lived longer than we do .... or at least had that potential . This is proven , ironically , by their teeth . Seems their molars erupted much later than ours do , which indicates that they matured much slower ..... thus their bones would have remained softer for much longer periods of time than ours do ."
|
"Support your assertion with peer-reviewed , scientific articles . Hell , you still need to support your assertion that soft bones make for `` phenotypic `` plasticity . Again , real scientists require evidence from research , or articles describing such evidence and research ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"See the difference is Neanderthals , and I have n't been able to get to this on here , lived longer than we do"
|
"Hell , you still need to support your assertion that soft bones make for `` phenotypic ``"
| null | null |
2,026 | 543 |
"Your addiction to violence is showing ."
|
"And your Orwellian position is showing ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Your addiction to violence is showing ."
|
"And your Orwellian position is showing ."
| null | null |
2,025 | 543 |
"Your addiction to violence is showing ."
|
"And your Orwellian position is showing ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Your addiction to violence is showing ."
|
"And your Orwellian position is showing ."
| null | null |
2,024 | 543 |
"Your addiction to violence is showing ."
|
"And your Orwellian position is showing ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Your addiction to violence is showing ."
|
"And your Orwellian position is showing ."
| null | null |
2,028 | 544 |
"For a long time they deceived me tooÂ….but after conversing with them day in and day out , I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Well bravo for you - they must not be all that good considering . Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ? Who can say ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"For a long time they deceived me tooÂ….but after conversing with them day in and day out , I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ?"
| null | null |
2,030 | 544 |
"For a long time they deceived me tooÂ….but after conversing with them day in and day out , I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Well bravo for you - they must not be all that good considering . Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ? Who can say ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ?"
| null | null |
2,029 | 544 |
"For a long time they deceived me tooÂ….but after conversing with them day in and day out , I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Well bravo for you - they must not be all that good considering . Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ? Who can say ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ?"
| null | null |
2,027 | 544 |
"For a long time they deceived me tooÂ….but after conversing with them day in and day out , I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Well bravo for you - they must not be all that good considering . Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ? Who can say ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"For a long time they deceived me tooÂ….but after conversing with them day in and day out , I began to learn how their minds work and how to quickly spot their deceptions ."
|
"Or did you simply learn to be deceptive yourself and confuse that with deception by others ? Who can say ?"
| null | null |
2,033 | 545 |
"Using exaggerated figures allows health advocate sages to capitalize on the emotionalism of childhood fatalities and thereby evade legitimate questions about their proposal to ban and confiscate handguns as a means of reducing such ( p.570 ) tragedies . We offer the following questions which , of course , are never mentioned in the health advocacy literature on children and guns : If so sweeping a measure as confiscating 230 million firearms is justified because some 273 children under age fifteen die in firearm accidents annually , is the less intrusive measure of banning child bicycles justified by the death of three times as many children in bicycle accidents annually ? [ 226 ] If confiscating over 80 million handguns is justified because approximately fifteen children under age five die in handgun accidents annually , is a ban on cigarette lighters justified by the fact that four times as many children in that age group die from playing with then annually ? Consider the fact that over 400 % more children under age fifteen die in drownings than in gun accidents ; [ 227 ] twenty times as many children under age five drown in bathtubs and home swimming pools as are killed in handgun accidents . [ 228 ] Few people need a bathtub ( as opposed to a shower stall ) or a swimming pool . If the tragedy of accidental childhood gun fatalities justifies confiscating over 80 million handguns , or all of the more than 230 million firearms , do the much greater numbers of tragic childhood drownings justify a licensing system under which only the disabled and others who show they `` truly need `` a bathtub or swimming pool will be allowed to have them ? [ 229 ]"
|
"But this is not the end of the story . The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
|
AGREE
|
"Using exaggerated figures allows health advocate sages to capitalize on the emotionalism of childhood fatalities and thereby evade legitimate questions about their proposal to ban and confiscate handguns as a means of reducing such"
|
"The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
| null | null |
2,034 | 545 |
"Using exaggerated figures allows health advocate sages to capitalize on the emotionalism of childhood fatalities and thereby evade legitimate questions about their proposal to ban and confiscate handguns as a means of reducing such ( p.570 ) tragedies . We offer the following questions which , of course , are never mentioned in the health advocacy literature on children and guns : If so sweeping a measure as confiscating 230 million firearms is justified because some 273 children under age fifteen die in firearm accidents annually , is the less intrusive measure of banning child bicycles justified by the death of three times as many children in bicycle accidents annually ? [ 226 ] If confiscating over 80 million handguns is justified because approximately fifteen children under age five die in handgun accidents annually , is a ban on cigarette lighters justified by the fact that four times as many children in that age group die from playing with then annually ? Consider the fact that over 400 % more children under age fifteen die in drownings than in gun accidents ; [ 227 ] twenty times as many children under age five drown in bathtubs and home swimming pools as are killed in handgun accidents . [ 228 ] Few people need a bathtub ( as opposed to a shower stall ) or a swimming pool . If the tragedy of accidental childhood gun fatalities justifies confiscating over 80 million handguns , or all of the more than 230 million firearms , do the much greater numbers of tragic childhood drownings justify a licensing system under which only the disabled and others who show they `` truly need `` a bathtub or swimming pool will be allowed to have them ? [ 229 ]"
|
"But this is not the end of the story . The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
|
AGREE
|
"If so sweeping a measure as confiscating 230 million firearms is justified because some 273 children under age fifteen die in firearm accidents annually ,"
|
"Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
| null | null |
2,032 | 545 |
"Using exaggerated figures allows health advocate sages to capitalize on the emotionalism of childhood fatalities and thereby evade legitimate questions about their proposal to ban and confiscate handguns as a means of reducing such ( p.570 ) tragedies . We offer the following questions which , of course , are never mentioned in the health advocacy literature on children and guns : If so sweeping a measure as confiscating 230 million firearms is justified because some 273 children under age fifteen die in firearm accidents annually , is the less intrusive measure of banning child bicycles justified by the death of three times as many children in bicycle accidents annually ? [ 226 ] If confiscating over 80 million handguns is justified because approximately fifteen children under age five die in handgun accidents annually , is a ban on cigarette lighters justified by the fact that four times as many children in that age group die from playing with then annually ? Consider the fact that over 400 % more children under age fifteen die in drownings than in gun accidents ; [ 227 ] twenty times as many children under age five drown in bathtubs and home swimming pools as are killed in handgun accidents . [ 228 ] Few people need a bathtub ( as opposed to a shower stall ) or a swimming pool . If the tragedy of accidental childhood gun fatalities justifies confiscating over 80 million handguns , or all of the more than 230 million firearms , do the much greater numbers of tragic childhood drownings justify a licensing system under which only the disabled and others who show they `` truly need `` a bathtub or swimming pool will be allowed to have them ? [ 229 ]"
|
"But this is not the end of the story . The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
|
AGREE
|
"Using exaggerated figures allows health advocate sages to capitalize on the emotionalism of childhood fatalities and thereby evade legitimate questions about their proposal to ban and confiscate handguns as a means of reducing such ( p.570 ) tragedies . ``"
|
"The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
| null | null |
2,031 | 545 |
"Using exaggerated figures allows health advocate sages to capitalize on the emotionalism of childhood fatalities and thereby evade legitimate questions about their proposal to ban and confiscate handguns as a means of reducing such ( p.570 ) tragedies . We offer the following questions which , of course , are never mentioned in the health advocacy literature on children and guns : If so sweeping a measure as confiscating 230 million firearms is justified because some 273 children under age fifteen die in firearm accidents annually , is the less intrusive measure of banning child bicycles justified by the death of three times as many children in bicycle accidents annually ? [ 226 ] If confiscating over 80 million handguns is justified because approximately fifteen children under age five die in handgun accidents annually , is a ban on cigarette lighters justified by the fact that four times as many children in that age group die from playing with then annually ? Consider the fact that over 400 % more children under age fifteen die in drownings than in gun accidents ; [ 227 ] twenty times as many children under age five drown in bathtubs and home swimming pools as are killed in handgun accidents . [ 228 ] Few people need a bathtub ( as opposed to a shower stall ) or a swimming pool . If the tragedy of accidental childhood gun fatalities justifies confiscating over 80 million handguns , or all of the more than 230 million firearms , do the much greater numbers of tragic childhood drownings justify a licensing system under which only the disabled and others who show they `` truly need `` a bathtub or swimming pool will be allowed to have them ? [ 229 ]"
|
"But this is not the end of the story . The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
|
AGREE
|
"Consider the fact that over 400 % more children under age fifteen die in drownings than in gun accidents ; [ 227 ] twenty times as many children under age five drown in bathtubs and home swimming pools as are killed in handgun accidents ."
|
"The news about gun accidents has gotten even better ! Today 's Gun Accident Rates Lowest On Record"
| null | null |
2,038 | 546 |
"O.k. , lets go through your scenario . The government has been toppled and the standing army has been crushed . Somehow all Americas nuclear arms were obliterated . The invading force has successfully instituted a dictatorship and is now systematically destroying our personal freedoms . Now suppose the year is 1799 and the population rises up . The five rounds with 200 million guns , works . The population overthroughs the invading army through sheer numbers , though the price is high in terms of casualties . America is once again free and the democratic system is once again put in place . The year is 2004 , the population is no longer fit and tough from working in the fields to get their own food . But each of the 400 million people has a gun , with lets say 30 rounds each . The population now has 12 billion rounds , and lets assume each round is an armour piercing bullet with long range capabilities , and lets also assume for the hell of it , that each gun is a machine gun with long-range single shot abilities and a scope ( just for fun ) . Same situation , same invading force . The population rises up , taking along with them the few remaining rockets and bombs from the few remaining weapons caches . Lets say 2 million hand-held anti-plane missiles , 4 million anti-tank missiles and for even more fun , lets say they have a genius military leader who has somehow the ability to maintain instant contact with any unit anywhere , and is the greatest tactical mind the planet has ever know . To overthrough the standing American army the invading force must have had massive numbers of planes , tanks and naval units . First off , 4 million anti-tank weapons is not much when put against 400 million people , so you have a lot of venerable areas . Where ever the militia units try to form , they are killed by tanks , even though many of the tanks with infantry backing are destroyed the army keeps going because to over through America who has the greatest tanks in the world , you would have to have like 10-1 ratio on the American armed divisions . But , wait . Lets assume somehow the ground forces of well-organized troops and tanks is defeated by the population . Lets assume the invading army again somehow lost all its ground units , lets pretend the enemy forces had exactly 4 million tanks , and the ratio of shot-to-kill was perfect . To defeat the American army of planes you would , again , have to have massive numbers ( or technology superior planes ) . So the population tries shooting down the planes , but the planes would usually get away because modern planes can take out a ground-based target with out ever going closer the a couple miles . But again , wait . Somehow , without losing so many troops as not to be able to defeat the massive mechanized occupying force , all planes are spotted ( miles away ) and shoot down by the UNTRAINED militia . The genius military leaders ( who no body though to kill ) work no doubt . Yet still , the population is defeated because if I remember correctly , the militia doesn ’ t have naval units . So even if all the inland forces could be killed , the majority of costal forces would be protected by barrages from the enemy naval force ( which is very large because it had to defeat the American navy , the greatest in the world technologically ) . But lets assume , the population just swims to the invading ships , kills the crews , and uses the ships they stole to kill the other enemy ships . Thank god for that tactical genius at the helm of the American resistance . I am actually guessing that invading force must be like 20 times bigger then America ’ s armies for one simple reason . The only way you could defeat the American ICBMs is to have a blitzkrieg ( I know my spelling sucks ) like attack . Most of the ICBM silos are n't connected to the internet , mainly because the government knows the silos would be venerable to internet attack , so any rebuttal involving the virus-like disabling of the nuclear stockpile is gone . Now , you may be wondering what am I trying to say here . Well its simple , if somehow , just somehow , the entire military force of the U.S. was obliterated , it would take just one ICBM hit on the enemy 's capital city to make attack impossible . Again , the blitzkrieg like attack ? Even if that worked the U.S. , like Russia and a few other nuclear powers , keeps stockpiles of nuclear weapons hidden underground in the invent of being taken over , and the underground stockpiles usually have several rockets with enough range to blast the heck out of the closest invading army . So it would never happen that the U.S. would be left nuclear-naked . But lets assume that happened ( maybe during a really , REALLY cool party some XXXXX colonel peed on them , and they just fried ) . The genius military commander did somehow take out the entire invading force of air , ground and sea . You still have to deal with the fact that whoever invaded the U.S. probably spend several trillion doing it ( I know , that ’ s a pretty low number for the invasion of America ) , and in that case most likely have satellites and long-range missiles ( again lets assume somehow America ’ s own just fell out of the sky and the invading force got even guys together to be able to take out all America ’ s nuclear silos including the underground stockpiles which each have own guard forces of soldiers training night and day for such an event ) . The hugest , most glaring problem with the militia , unless every one the 400 million militia units somehow got a radio and a laptop , they would have to gather . And if they gathered in the numbers they would need to gather in , to order to defeat the large invading army , they would be taken out very easily by 1 . ICBMs launched from enemy subs 2 . Prominent meetings between our military genius and his supporters stopped by snipers with a 1.5 mile range and superb training and intelligence ( remember those satellites ) 3. all groups preparing for `` battle `` so to speak could be taken out as they are marching or driving or whatever by mortars , ambushes , rockets , infantry rushes , tank columns etc . before they knew what hit them . 4 . It would take a lot of planning to get 400 million people to fight , and assuming everybody has a laptop with wireless capability , they would still need satellites for the military genius in California to command units in N.Y. , N.Y. , and .... wait America ’ s satellites are gone and if the invading force could do that , it would n't be that hard to take out commercial internet satellites in geoscyhronize orbit ( effectively sitting ducks ) . And any land based networks would be destroyed in the first few hours of insurrection . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But militia units only have guns , and they would get their butts whooped , even with massive numbers . What you are saying is only true about Napoleonic tactics , in today ’ s modern warfare almost completely infantry-based armies are obsolete and very venerable No the afghan war is not a valid counterpoint , the terrain was different , the people are more hardened , the weapons were supplied by a military power superior to the Russians , the afghans had unlimited anti-tank reserves , had incredibly extensive cave networks in which to hide , plan and attack , only had to defeat , on the majority , other infantry battalions because of the terrain in which armoured vehicles could not cross , the Russians were under funded and their moral low , the soviets had already been beaten down by large amounts of smaller fights across the cracking Soviet Empire , china needed to be supplied with more troops as it started to look toward independence , Afghanistan is nowhere near water eliminated the possibility of naval back-up by the very crappy Russian naval forces , the afghans received help from the rest of the Arab world which would not happen with the U.S. because if an enemy can take out the U.S. , it could probably take out the combined forces of Europe and North America , and , finally , the afgans did n't have nukes so they had to defend themselves with their own two hands , but america has nukes and if ever anything tryed to do what is in the above senario they would get blasted because unlike the russians in afganhistan , the americans would be defended their homeland . Neither is the French revolution a good-counter point , as I have said , your tactics only work with Napoleonic-style battles and guess what kind of battle were happening when Napoleon the 3rd was in power ? ( in case you did n't learn it in school , Napoleon the 3rd , napoleon 's nephew , was in power during the french revolution ) Trust me , cause the only thing I love more then physics is military tactics and warfare . -- -- As I have shown in more detail , Treat2 is right , it would n't work. -- -- -- The other amendments do n't pertain to retaining the sovereignty of the U.S.A , they pertain to the basic rights each citizen enjoys and therefore will always be important and `` In Fashion `` so long as the U.S. still has human citizens . Please opinions only , not baseless assumptions using limited military knowledge , or rebuttals to previous opinions ."
|
"So , in your opinion , are you saying that this invading force that you are talking about , would never bat an eye as to whether the people of the USA are armed to the teeth or not in their pre-war planning ? Surely any country that tried to overtake the USA would suffer severe damage to its military in all aspects.And even if it succeeded , it would still have to deal with our armed citizens . Are you trying to tell me that this is not a ditterent ? Sure , if you dream up some DARTH VADER size invasion , no one stands a chance.But if you put it real world perspective.Say,2 or 3 of the bigger countries got together and decided to over take the USA.I would assume `` armed citizens `` would be a major factor in deciding whether to invade or not ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"The government has been toppled and the standing army has been crushed . Somehow all Americas nuclear arms were obliterated"
|
"USA would suffer severe damage to its military in all"
| null | null |
2,036 | 546 |
"O.k. , lets go through your scenario . The government has been toppled and the standing army has been crushed . Somehow all Americas nuclear arms were obliterated . The invading force has successfully instituted a dictatorship and is now systematically destroying our personal freedoms . Now suppose the year is 1799 and the population rises up . The five rounds with 200 million guns , works . The population overthroughs the invading army through sheer numbers , though the price is high in terms of casualties . America is once again free and the democratic system is once again put in place . The year is 2004 , the population is no longer fit and tough from working in the fields to get their own food . But each of the 400 million people has a gun , with lets say 30 rounds each . The population now has 12 billion rounds , and lets assume each round is an armour piercing bullet with long range capabilities , and lets also assume for the hell of it , that each gun is a machine gun with long-range single shot abilities and a scope ( just for fun ) . Same situation , same invading force . The population rises up , taking along with them the few remaining rockets and bombs from the few remaining weapons caches . Lets say 2 million hand-held anti-plane missiles , 4 million anti-tank missiles and for even more fun , lets say they have a genius military leader who has somehow the ability to maintain instant contact with any unit anywhere , and is the greatest tactical mind the planet has ever know . To overthrough the standing American army the invading force must have had massive numbers of planes , tanks and naval units . First off , 4 million anti-tank weapons is not much when put against 400 million people , so you have a lot of venerable areas . Where ever the militia units try to form , they are killed by tanks , even though many of the tanks with infantry backing are destroyed the army keeps going because to over through America who has the greatest tanks in the world , you would have to have like 10-1 ratio on the American armed divisions . But , wait . Lets assume somehow the ground forces of well-organized troops and tanks is defeated by the population . Lets assume the invading army again somehow lost all its ground units , lets pretend the enemy forces had exactly 4 million tanks , and the ratio of shot-to-kill was perfect . To defeat the American army of planes you would , again , have to have massive numbers ( or technology superior planes ) . So the population tries shooting down the planes , but the planes would usually get away because modern planes can take out a ground-based target with out ever going closer the a couple miles . But again , wait . Somehow , without losing so many troops as not to be able to defeat the massive mechanized occupying force , all planes are spotted ( miles away ) and shoot down by the UNTRAINED militia . The genius military leaders ( who no body though to kill ) work no doubt . Yet still , the population is defeated because if I remember correctly , the militia doesn ’ t have naval units . So even if all the inland forces could be killed , the majority of costal forces would be protected by barrages from the enemy naval force ( which is very large because it had to defeat the American navy , the greatest in the world technologically ) . But lets assume , the population just swims to the invading ships , kills the crews , and uses the ships they stole to kill the other enemy ships . Thank god for that tactical genius at the helm of the American resistance . I am actually guessing that invading force must be like 20 times bigger then America ’ s armies for one simple reason . The only way you could defeat the American ICBMs is to have a blitzkrieg ( I know my spelling sucks ) like attack . Most of the ICBM silos are n't connected to the internet , mainly because the government knows the silos would be venerable to internet attack , so any rebuttal involving the virus-like disabling of the nuclear stockpile is gone . Now , you may be wondering what am I trying to say here . Well its simple , if somehow , just somehow , the entire military force of the U.S. was obliterated , it would take just one ICBM hit on the enemy 's capital city to make attack impossible . Again , the blitzkrieg like attack ? Even if that worked the U.S. , like Russia and a few other nuclear powers , keeps stockpiles of nuclear weapons hidden underground in the invent of being taken over , and the underground stockpiles usually have several rockets with enough range to blast the heck out of the closest invading army . So it would never happen that the U.S. would be left nuclear-naked . But lets assume that happened ( maybe during a really , REALLY cool party some XXXXX colonel peed on them , and they just fried ) . The genius military commander did somehow take out the entire invading force of air , ground and sea . You still have to deal with the fact that whoever invaded the U.S. probably spend several trillion doing it ( I know , that ’ s a pretty low number for the invasion of America ) , and in that case most likely have satellites and long-range missiles ( again lets assume somehow America ’ s own just fell out of the sky and the invading force got even guys together to be able to take out all America ’ s nuclear silos including the underground stockpiles which each have own guard forces of soldiers training night and day for such an event ) . The hugest , most glaring problem with the militia , unless every one the 400 million militia units somehow got a radio and a laptop , they would have to gather . And if they gathered in the numbers they would need to gather in , to order to defeat the large invading army , they would be taken out very easily by 1 . ICBMs launched from enemy subs 2 . Prominent meetings between our military genius and his supporters stopped by snipers with a 1.5 mile range and superb training and intelligence ( remember those satellites ) 3. all groups preparing for `` battle `` so to speak could be taken out as they are marching or driving or whatever by mortars , ambushes , rockets , infantry rushes , tank columns etc . before they knew what hit them . 4 . It would take a lot of planning to get 400 million people to fight , and assuming everybody has a laptop with wireless capability , they would still need satellites for the military genius in California to command units in N.Y. , N.Y. , and .... wait America ’ s satellites are gone and if the invading force could do that , it would n't be that hard to take out commercial internet satellites in geoscyhronize orbit ( effectively sitting ducks ) . And any land based networks would be destroyed in the first few hours of insurrection . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But militia units only have guns , and they would get their butts whooped , even with massive numbers . What you are saying is only true about Napoleonic tactics , in today ’ s modern warfare almost completely infantry-based armies are obsolete and very venerable No the afghan war is not a valid counterpoint , the terrain was different , the people are more hardened , the weapons were supplied by a military power superior to the Russians , the afghans had unlimited anti-tank reserves , had incredibly extensive cave networks in which to hide , plan and attack , only had to defeat , on the majority , other infantry battalions because of the terrain in which armoured vehicles could not cross , the Russians were under funded and their moral low , the soviets had already been beaten down by large amounts of smaller fights across the cracking Soviet Empire , china needed to be supplied with more troops as it started to look toward independence , Afghanistan is nowhere near water eliminated the possibility of naval back-up by the very crappy Russian naval forces , the afghans received help from the rest of the Arab world which would not happen with the U.S. because if an enemy can take out the U.S. , it could probably take out the combined forces of Europe and North America , and , finally , the afgans did n't have nukes so they had to defend themselves with their own two hands , but america has nukes and if ever anything tryed to do what is in the above senario they would get blasted because unlike the russians in afganhistan , the americans would be defended their homeland . Neither is the French revolution a good-counter point , as I have said , your tactics only work with Napoleonic-style battles and guess what kind of battle were happening when Napoleon the 3rd was in power ? ( in case you did n't learn it in school , Napoleon the 3rd , napoleon 's nephew , was in power during the french revolution ) Trust me , cause the only thing I love more then physics is military tactics and warfare . -- -- As I have shown in more detail , Treat2 is right , it would n't work. -- -- -- The other amendments do n't pertain to retaining the sovereignty of the U.S.A , they pertain to the basic rights each citizen enjoys and therefore will always be important and `` In Fashion `` so long as the U.S. still has human citizens . Please opinions only , not baseless assumptions using limited military knowledge , or rebuttals to previous opinions ."
|
"So , in your opinion , are you saying that this invading force that you are talking about , would never bat an eye as to whether the people of the USA are armed to the teeth or not in their pre-war planning ? Surely any country that tried to overtake the USA would suffer severe damage to its military in all aspects.And even if it succeeded , it would still have to deal with our armed citizens . Are you trying to tell me that this is not a ditterent ? Sure , if you dream up some DARTH VADER size invasion , no one stands a chance.But if you put it real world perspective.Say,2 or 3 of the bigger countries got together and decided to over take the USA.I would assume `` armed citizens `` would be a major factor in deciding whether to invade or not ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"But militia units only have guns , and they would get their butts whooped , even with massive numbers . What you are saying is only true about Napoleonic tactics , in today ’ s modern warfare almost completely infantry-based armies are obsolete and very venerable"
|
"So , in your opinion , are you saying that this invading force that you are talking about , would never bat an eye as to whether the people of the USA are armed to the teeth or not in their pre-war planning ? Surely any country that tried to overtake the USA would suffer severe damage to its military in all . ``"
| null | null |
2,037 | 546 |
"O.k. , lets go through your scenario . The government has been toppled and the standing army has been crushed . Somehow all Americas nuclear arms were obliterated . The invading force has successfully instituted a dictatorship and is now systematically destroying our personal freedoms . Now suppose the year is 1799 and the population rises up . The five rounds with 200 million guns , works . The population overthroughs the invading army through sheer numbers , though the price is high in terms of casualties . America is once again free and the democratic system is once again put in place . The year is 2004 , the population is no longer fit and tough from working in the fields to get their own food . But each of the 400 million people has a gun , with lets say 30 rounds each . The population now has 12 billion rounds , and lets assume each round is an armour piercing bullet with long range capabilities , and lets also assume for the hell of it , that each gun is a machine gun with long-range single shot abilities and a scope ( just for fun ) . Same situation , same invading force . The population rises up , taking along with them the few remaining rockets and bombs from the few remaining weapons caches . Lets say 2 million hand-held anti-plane missiles , 4 million anti-tank missiles and for even more fun , lets say they have a genius military leader who has somehow the ability to maintain instant contact with any unit anywhere , and is the greatest tactical mind the planet has ever know . To overthrough the standing American army the invading force must have had massive numbers of planes , tanks and naval units . First off , 4 million anti-tank weapons is not much when put against 400 million people , so you have a lot of venerable areas . Where ever the militia units try to form , they are killed by tanks , even though many of the tanks with infantry backing are destroyed the army keeps going because to over through America who has the greatest tanks in the world , you would have to have like 10-1 ratio on the American armed divisions . But , wait . Lets assume somehow the ground forces of well-organized troops and tanks is defeated by the population . Lets assume the invading army again somehow lost all its ground units , lets pretend the enemy forces had exactly 4 million tanks , and the ratio of shot-to-kill was perfect . To defeat the American army of planes you would , again , have to have massive numbers ( or technology superior planes ) . So the population tries shooting down the planes , but the planes would usually get away because modern planes can take out a ground-based target with out ever going closer the a couple miles . But again , wait . Somehow , without losing so many troops as not to be able to defeat the massive mechanized occupying force , all planes are spotted ( miles away ) and shoot down by the UNTRAINED militia . The genius military leaders ( who no body though to kill ) work no doubt . Yet still , the population is defeated because if I remember correctly , the militia doesn ’ t have naval units . So even if all the inland forces could be killed , the majority of costal forces would be protected by barrages from the enemy naval force ( which is very large because it had to defeat the American navy , the greatest in the world technologically ) . But lets assume , the population just swims to the invading ships , kills the crews , and uses the ships they stole to kill the other enemy ships . Thank god for that tactical genius at the helm of the American resistance . I am actually guessing that invading force must be like 20 times bigger then America ’ s armies for one simple reason . The only way you could defeat the American ICBMs is to have a blitzkrieg ( I know my spelling sucks ) like attack . Most of the ICBM silos are n't connected to the internet , mainly because the government knows the silos would be venerable to internet attack , so any rebuttal involving the virus-like disabling of the nuclear stockpile is gone . Now , you may be wondering what am I trying to say here . Well its simple , if somehow , just somehow , the entire military force of the U.S. was obliterated , it would take just one ICBM hit on the enemy 's capital city to make attack impossible . Again , the blitzkrieg like attack ? Even if that worked the U.S. , like Russia and a few other nuclear powers , keeps stockpiles of nuclear weapons hidden underground in the invent of being taken over , and the underground stockpiles usually have several rockets with enough range to blast the heck out of the closest invading army . So it would never happen that the U.S. would be left nuclear-naked . But lets assume that happened ( maybe during a really , REALLY cool party some XXXXX colonel peed on them , and they just fried ) . The genius military commander did somehow take out the entire invading force of air , ground and sea . You still have to deal with the fact that whoever invaded the U.S. probably spend several trillion doing it ( I know , that ’ s a pretty low number for the invasion of America ) , and in that case most likely have satellites and long-range missiles ( again lets assume somehow America ’ s own just fell out of the sky and the invading force got even guys together to be able to take out all America ’ s nuclear silos including the underground stockpiles which each have own guard forces of soldiers training night and day for such an event ) . The hugest , most glaring problem with the militia , unless every one the 400 million militia units somehow got a radio and a laptop , they would have to gather . And if they gathered in the numbers they would need to gather in , to order to defeat the large invading army , they would be taken out very easily by 1 . ICBMs launched from enemy subs 2 . Prominent meetings between our military genius and his supporters stopped by snipers with a 1.5 mile range and superb training and intelligence ( remember those satellites ) 3. all groups preparing for `` battle `` so to speak could be taken out as they are marching or driving or whatever by mortars , ambushes , rockets , infantry rushes , tank columns etc . before they knew what hit them . 4 . It would take a lot of planning to get 400 million people to fight , and assuming everybody has a laptop with wireless capability , they would still need satellites for the military genius in California to command units in N.Y. , N.Y. , and .... wait America ’ s satellites are gone and if the invading force could do that , it would n't be that hard to take out commercial internet satellites in geoscyhronize orbit ( effectively sitting ducks ) . And any land based networks would be destroyed in the first few hours of insurrection . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But militia units only have guns , and they would get their butts whooped , even with massive numbers . What you are saying is only true about Napoleonic tactics , in today ’ s modern warfare almost completely infantry-based armies are obsolete and very venerable No the afghan war is not a valid counterpoint , the terrain was different , the people are more hardened , the weapons were supplied by a military power superior to the Russians , the afghans had unlimited anti-tank reserves , had incredibly extensive cave networks in which to hide , plan and attack , only had to defeat , on the majority , other infantry battalions because of the terrain in which armoured vehicles could not cross , the Russians were under funded and their moral low , the soviets had already been beaten down by large amounts of smaller fights across the cracking Soviet Empire , china needed to be supplied with more troops as it started to look toward independence , Afghanistan is nowhere near water eliminated the possibility of naval back-up by the very crappy Russian naval forces , the afghans received help from the rest of the Arab world which would not happen with the U.S. because if an enemy can take out the U.S. , it could probably take out the combined forces of Europe and North America , and , finally , the afgans did n't have nukes so they had to defend themselves with their own two hands , but america has nukes and if ever anything tryed to do what is in the above senario they would get blasted because unlike the russians in afganhistan , the americans would be defended their homeland . Neither is the French revolution a good-counter point , as I have said , your tactics only work with Napoleonic-style battles and guess what kind of battle were happening when Napoleon the 3rd was in power ? ( in case you did n't learn it in school , Napoleon the 3rd , napoleon 's nephew , was in power during the french revolution ) Trust me , cause the only thing I love more then physics is military tactics and warfare . -- -- As I have shown in more detail , Treat2 is right , it would n't work. -- -- -- The other amendments do n't pertain to retaining the sovereignty of the U.S.A , they pertain to the basic rights each citizen enjoys and therefore will always be important and `` In Fashion `` so long as the U.S. still has human citizens . Please opinions only , not baseless assumptions using limited military knowledge , or rebuttals to previous opinions ."
|
"So , in your opinion , are you saying that this invading force that you are talking about , would never bat an eye as to whether the people of the USA are armed to the teeth or not in their pre-war planning ? Surely any country that tried to overtake the USA would suffer severe damage to its military in all aspects.And even if it succeeded , it would still have to deal with our armed citizens . Are you trying to tell me that this is not a ditterent ? Sure , if you dream up some DARTH VADER size invasion , no one stands a chance.But if you put it real world perspective.Say,2 or 3 of the bigger countries got together and decided to over take the USA.I would assume `` armed citizens `` would be a major factor in deciding whether to invade or not ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"The government has been toppled and the standing army has been crushed ."
|
"So , in your opinion , are you saying that this invading force that you are talking about , would never bat an eye as to whether the people of the USA are armed to the teeth or not in their pre-war planning ?"
| null | null |
2,035 | 546 |
"O.k. , lets go through your scenario . The government has been toppled and the standing army has been crushed . Somehow all Americas nuclear arms were obliterated . The invading force has successfully instituted a dictatorship and is now systematically destroying our personal freedoms . Now suppose the year is 1799 and the population rises up . The five rounds with 200 million guns , works . The population overthroughs the invading army through sheer numbers , though the price is high in terms of casualties . America is once again free and the democratic system is once again put in place . The year is 2004 , the population is no longer fit and tough from working in the fields to get their own food . But each of the 400 million people has a gun , with lets say 30 rounds each . The population now has 12 billion rounds , and lets assume each round is an armour piercing bullet with long range capabilities , and lets also assume for the hell of it , that each gun is a machine gun with long-range single shot abilities and a scope ( just for fun ) . Same situation , same invading force . The population rises up , taking along with them the few remaining rockets and bombs from the few remaining weapons caches . Lets say 2 million hand-held anti-plane missiles , 4 million anti-tank missiles and for even more fun , lets say they have a genius military leader who has somehow the ability to maintain instant contact with any unit anywhere , and is the greatest tactical mind the planet has ever know . To overthrough the standing American army the invading force must have had massive numbers of planes , tanks and naval units . First off , 4 million anti-tank weapons is not much when put against 400 million people , so you have a lot of venerable areas . Where ever the militia units try to form , they are killed by tanks , even though many of the tanks with infantry backing are destroyed the army keeps going because to over through America who has the greatest tanks in the world , you would have to have like 10-1 ratio on the American armed divisions . But , wait . Lets assume somehow the ground forces of well-organized troops and tanks is defeated by the population . Lets assume the invading army again somehow lost all its ground units , lets pretend the enemy forces had exactly 4 million tanks , and the ratio of shot-to-kill was perfect . To defeat the American army of planes you would , again , have to have massive numbers ( or technology superior planes ) . So the population tries shooting down the planes , but the planes would usually get away because modern planes can take out a ground-based target with out ever going closer the a couple miles . But again , wait . Somehow , without losing so many troops as not to be able to defeat the massive mechanized occupying force , all planes are spotted ( miles away ) and shoot down by the UNTRAINED militia . The genius military leaders ( who no body though to kill ) work no doubt . Yet still , the population is defeated because if I remember correctly , the militia doesn ’ t have naval units . So even if all the inland forces could be killed , the majority of costal forces would be protected by barrages from the enemy naval force ( which is very large because it had to defeat the American navy , the greatest in the world technologically ) . But lets assume , the population just swims to the invading ships , kills the crews , and uses the ships they stole to kill the other enemy ships . Thank god for that tactical genius at the helm of the American resistance . I am actually guessing that invading force must be like 20 times bigger then America ’ s armies for one simple reason . The only way you could defeat the American ICBMs is to have a blitzkrieg ( I know my spelling sucks ) like attack . Most of the ICBM silos are n't connected to the internet , mainly because the government knows the silos would be venerable to internet attack , so any rebuttal involving the virus-like disabling of the nuclear stockpile is gone . Now , you may be wondering what am I trying to say here . Well its simple , if somehow , just somehow , the entire military force of the U.S. was obliterated , it would take just one ICBM hit on the enemy 's capital city to make attack impossible . Again , the blitzkrieg like attack ? Even if that worked the U.S. , like Russia and a few other nuclear powers , keeps stockpiles of nuclear weapons hidden underground in the invent of being taken over , and the underground stockpiles usually have several rockets with enough range to blast the heck out of the closest invading army . So it would never happen that the U.S. would be left nuclear-naked . But lets assume that happened ( maybe during a really , REALLY cool party some XXXXX colonel peed on them , and they just fried ) . The genius military commander did somehow take out the entire invading force of air , ground and sea . You still have to deal with the fact that whoever invaded the U.S. probably spend several trillion doing it ( I know , that ’ s a pretty low number for the invasion of America ) , and in that case most likely have satellites and long-range missiles ( again lets assume somehow America ’ s own just fell out of the sky and the invading force got even guys together to be able to take out all America ’ s nuclear silos including the underground stockpiles which each have own guard forces of soldiers training night and day for such an event ) . The hugest , most glaring problem with the militia , unless every one the 400 million militia units somehow got a radio and a laptop , they would have to gather . And if they gathered in the numbers they would need to gather in , to order to defeat the large invading army , they would be taken out very easily by 1 . ICBMs launched from enemy subs 2 . Prominent meetings between our military genius and his supporters stopped by snipers with a 1.5 mile range and superb training and intelligence ( remember those satellites ) 3. all groups preparing for `` battle `` so to speak could be taken out as they are marching or driving or whatever by mortars , ambushes , rockets , infantry rushes , tank columns etc . before they knew what hit them . 4 . It would take a lot of planning to get 400 million people to fight , and assuming everybody has a laptop with wireless capability , they would still need satellites for the military genius in California to command units in N.Y. , N.Y. , and .... wait America ’ s satellites are gone and if the invading force could do that , it would n't be that hard to take out commercial internet satellites in geoscyhronize orbit ( effectively sitting ducks ) . And any land based networks would be destroyed in the first few hours of insurrection . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But militia units only have guns , and they would get their butts whooped , even with massive numbers . What you are saying is only true about Napoleonic tactics , in today ’ s modern warfare almost completely infantry-based armies are obsolete and very venerable No the afghan war is not a valid counterpoint , the terrain was different , the people are more hardened , the weapons were supplied by a military power superior to the Russians , the afghans had unlimited anti-tank reserves , had incredibly extensive cave networks in which to hide , plan and attack , only had to defeat , on the majority , other infantry battalions because of the terrain in which armoured vehicles could not cross , the Russians were under funded and their moral low , the soviets had already been beaten down by large amounts of smaller fights across the cracking Soviet Empire , china needed to be supplied with more troops as it started to look toward independence , Afghanistan is nowhere near water eliminated the possibility of naval back-up by the very crappy Russian naval forces , the afghans received help from the rest of the Arab world which would not happen with the U.S. because if an enemy can take out the U.S. , it could probably take out the combined forces of Europe and North America , and , finally , the afgans did n't have nukes so they had to defend themselves with their own two hands , but america has nukes and if ever anything tryed to do what is in the above senario they would get blasted because unlike the russians in afganhistan , the americans would be defended their homeland . Neither is the French revolution a good-counter point , as I have said , your tactics only work with Napoleonic-style battles and guess what kind of battle were happening when Napoleon the 3rd was in power ? ( in case you did n't learn it in school , Napoleon the 3rd , napoleon 's nephew , was in power during the french revolution ) Trust me , cause the only thing I love more then physics is military tactics and warfare . -- -- As I have shown in more detail , Treat2 is right , it would n't work. -- -- -- The other amendments do n't pertain to retaining the sovereignty of the U.S.A , they pertain to the basic rights each citizen enjoys and therefore will always be important and `` In Fashion `` so long as the U.S. still has human citizens . Please opinions only , not baseless assumptions using limited military knowledge , or rebuttals to previous opinions ."
|
"So , in your opinion , are you saying that this invading force that you are talking about , would never bat an eye as to whether the people of the USA are armed to the teeth or not in their pre-war planning ? Surely any country that tried to overtake the USA would suffer severe damage to its military in all aspects.And even if it succeeded , it would still have to deal with our armed citizens . Are you trying to tell me that this is not a ditterent ? Sure , if you dream up some DARTH VADER size invasion , no one stands a chance.But if you put it real world perspective.Say,2 or 3 of the bigger countries got together and decided to over take the USA.I would assume `` armed citizens `` would be a major factor in deciding whether to invade or not ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"But each of the 400 million people has a gun , with lets say 30 rounds each"
|
"citizens `` would be a major factor in deciding whether to invade or not ."
| null | null |
2,039 | 547 |
"A slimey claim you can not support as usual . In developed Nations , the U.S. is far down the list as has been posted on this very board at least 5 times . Those 'other ' Nations also have far more crime and violent crime than the U.S ."
|
"So what developed nations have lower murder rates than the US ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"developed Nations , more crime and violent crime than the U.S ."
|
"developed nations murder rates than the US ?"
| null | null |
2,041 | 547 |
"A slimey claim you can not support as usual . In developed Nations , the U.S. is far down the list as has been posted on this very board at least 5 times . Those 'other ' Nations also have far more crime and violent crime than the U.S ."
|
"So what developed nations have lower murder rates than the US ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"A slimey claim you can not support as usual ."
|
"So what developed nations have lower murder rates than the US ?"
| null | null |
2,043 | 547 |
"A slimey claim you can not support as usual . In developed Nations , the U.S. is far down the list as has been posted on this very board at least 5 times . Those 'other ' Nations also have far more crime and violent crime than the U.S ."
|
"So what developed nations have lower murder rates than the US ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"In developed Nations , the U.S. is far down the list"
|
"what developed nations have lower murder rates than the US ?"
| null | null |
2,040 | 547 |
"A slimey claim you can not support as usual . In developed Nations , the U.S. is far down the list as has been posted on this very board at least 5 times . Those 'other ' Nations also have far more crime and violent crime than the U.S ."
|
"So what developed nations have lower murder rates than the US ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"slimey claim you can not support as usual . In developed Nations"
|
"nations have lower murder rates than the US"
| null | null |
2,045 | 548 |
"Either that or my intelect has outgrown my faith , whether its a good thing or a bad thing ."
|
"Can your intellect explain infinity ... such a tasty word"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Either that or my intelect has outgrown my faith"
|
"Can your intellect explain infinity"
| null | null |
2,046 | 548 |
"Either that or my intelect has outgrown my faith , whether its a good thing or a bad thing ."
|
"Can your intellect explain infinity ... such a tasty word"
|
DISAGREE
|
"my intelect has outgrown my faith ,"
|
"Can your intellect explain infinity"
| null | null |
2,048 | 549 |
"Are you for limiting abortion to that ?"
|
"Limiting it to what ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Are you for limiting abortion to that ?"
|
"Limiting it to what ?"
| null | null |
2,049 | 549 |
"Are you for limiting abortion to that ?"
|
"Limiting it to what ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Are you for limiting abortion to that ?"
|
"Limiting it to what"
| null | null |
2,047 | 549 |
"Are you for limiting abortion to that ?"
|
"Limiting it to what ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Are you for limiting abortion to that ?"
|
"Limiting it to what ?"
| null | null |
2,051 | 550 |
"all you have to do is scroll back a page or two in this forum ... look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards . I also gave you snails . show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ? Fresh Organic Sample is just as old as centuries old time capsule because they are both on top of the ground ! Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ? I 'd love to give some to the kids !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards . I also gave you snails"
|
"Fresh Organic Sample is just as old as centuries old time capsule because they are both on top of the ground ! Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ? I 'd love to give some to the kids !"
| null | null |
2,055 | 550 |
"all you have to do is scroll back a page or two in this forum ... look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards . I also gave you snails . show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ? Fresh Organic Sample is just as old as centuries old time capsule because they are both on top of the ground ! Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ? I 'd love to give some to the kids !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards"
|
"Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ?"
| null | null |
2,054 | 550 |
"all you have to do is scroll back a page or two in this forum ... look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards . I also gave you snails . show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ? Fresh Organic Sample is just as old as centuries old time capsule because they are both on top of the ground ! Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ? I 'd love to give some to the kids !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ?"
| null | null |
2,053 | 550 |
"all you have to do is scroll back a page or two in this forum ... look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards . I also gave you snails . show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ? Fresh Organic Sample is just as old as centuries old time capsule because they are both on top of the ground ! Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ? I 'd love to give some to the kids !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ?"
| null | null |
2,052 | 550 |
"all you have to do is scroll back a page or two in this forum ... look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards . I also gave you snails . show me any example of so-called natural selection or evolution in the field and I bet I can shoot it down ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ? Fresh Organic Sample is just as old as centuries old time capsule because they are both on top of the ground ! Where do you buy your South American Villagers Dinosaur commercial art ? I 'd love to give some to the kids !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"all you have to do is scroll back a page or two in this forum ... look for my posts regarding cichlids , guppies and lizards ."
|
"Just like you did with your astounding ignorance of erosion ?"
| null | null |
2,059 | 551 |
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism - ( no God ) humanism - ( man as God ) polytheism - ( many gods ) pantheism - ( one immanent God ) theism - ( one transcendent God - Genesis 1 )"
|
"You forgot agnosticism - ( God ? maybe/maybe not )"
|
AGREE
|
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are"
|
"You forgot agnosticism"
| null | null |
2,057 | 551 |
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism - ( no God ) humanism - ( man as God ) polytheism - ( many gods ) pantheism - ( one immanent God ) theism - ( one transcendent God - Genesis 1 )"
|
"You forgot agnosticism - ( God ? maybe/maybe not )"
|
AGREE
|
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism - ( no God ) humanism - ( man as God ) polytheism - ( many gods ) pantheism - ( one immanent God ) theism - ( one transcendent God - Genesis 1 )"
|
"You forgot agnosticism - ( God ? maybe/maybe not )"
| null | null |
2,056 | 551 |
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism - ( no God ) humanism - ( man as God ) polytheism - ( many gods ) pantheism - ( one immanent God ) theism - ( one transcendent God - Genesis 1 )"
|
"You forgot agnosticism - ( God ? maybe/maybe not )"
|
AGREE
|
"atheism God humanism pantheism"
|
"agnosticism God"
| null | null |
2,058 | 551 |
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism - ( no God ) humanism - ( man as God ) polytheism - ( many gods ) pantheism - ( one immanent God ) theism - ( one transcendent God - Genesis 1 )"
|
"You forgot agnosticism - ( God ? maybe/maybe not )"
|
AGREE
|
"possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism"
|
"You forgot agnosticism"
| null | null |
2,060 | 551 |
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are : atheism - ( no God ) humanism - ( man as God ) polytheism - ( many gods ) pantheism - ( one immanent God ) theism - ( one transcendent God - Genesis 1 )"
|
"You forgot agnosticism - ( God ? maybe/maybe not )"
|
AGREE
|
"The only five possibilities for ultimate meaning and values are"
|
"You forgot agnosticism"
| null | null |
2,064 | 552 |
"You kind of misrepresent cones view . He does n't believe in abortion in cases or rape ( neither do I ) . This is why we maintain that you might be obligated to keep the violionist attached for those 9 months . Another way to look at it would be if you wanted to stay attached to the violionist . Does this mean the violionst has to do whatever you want to do now ? Do you believe you have ownership over the violionist ? Could you stab him in the back of the neck if you wanted to ?"
|
"I believe Cone is a woman as is Sigma . Just wanted to give props to our articulate women ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You kind of misrepresent cones view ."
|
"I believe Cone is a woman as is Sigma"
| null | null |
2,065 | 552 |
"You kind of misrepresent cones view . He does n't believe in abortion in cases or rape ( neither do I ) . This is why we maintain that you might be obligated to keep the violionist attached for those 9 months . Another way to look at it would be if you wanted to stay attached to the violionist . Does this mean the violionst has to do whatever you want to do now ? Do you believe you have ownership over the violionist ? Could you stab him in the back of the neck if you wanted to ?"
|
"I believe Cone is a woman as is Sigma . Just wanted to give props to our articulate women ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You kind of misrepresent cones view . He does n't believe"
|
"I believe Cone is a woman"
| null | null |
2,061 | 552 |
"You kind of misrepresent cones view . He does n't believe in abortion in cases or rape ( neither do I ) . This is why we maintain that you might be obligated to keep the violionist attached for those 9 months . Another way to look at it would be if you wanted to stay attached to the violionist . Does this mean the violionst has to do whatever you want to do now ? Do you believe you have ownership over the violionist ? Could you stab him in the back of the neck if you wanted to ?"
|
"I believe Cone is a woman as is Sigma . Just wanted to give props to our articulate women ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"believe in abortion in cases or rape"
|
"Cone is a woman as is Sigma"
| null | null |
2,063 | 552 |
"You kind of misrepresent cones view . He does n't believe in abortion in cases or rape ( neither do I ) . This is why we maintain that you might be obligated to keep the violionist attached for those 9 months . Another way to look at it would be if you wanted to stay attached to the violionist . Does this mean the violionst has to do whatever you want to do now ? Do you believe you have ownership over the violionist ? Could you stab him in the back of the neck if you wanted to ?"
|
"I believe Cone is a woman as is Sigma . Just wanted to give props to our articulate women ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You kind of misrepresent cones view . He does n't believe in abortion in cases or rape"
|
"I believe Cone is a woman as is Sigma . Just wanted to give props to our articulate women ."
| null | null |
2,066 | 553 |
"The failings are in the participants , not the system . The sins you enumerate would afflict us if we still lived in caves . The human condition . It can be countered . Jesus had something to say about it , among others ."
|
"Well said ! The two things that seem to motivate us most are fear and greed !"
|
AGREE
|
"the participants , not the system . The sins you enumerate would afflict us if we still lived in caves"
|
"seem to motivate us most are fear and greed"
| null | null |
2,067 | 553 |
"The failings are in the participants , not the system . The sins you enumerate would afflict us if we still lived in caves . The human condition . It can be countered . Jesus had something to say about it , among others ."
|
"Well said ! The two things that seem to motivate us most are fear and greed !"
|
AGREE
|
"The failings are in the participants , not the system"
|
"The two things that seem to motivate us most are fear and greed !"
| null | null |
2,069 | 553 |
"The failings are in the participants , not the system . The sins you enumerate would afflict us if we still lived in caves . The human condition . It can be countered . Jesus had something to say about it , among others ."
|
"Well said ! The two things that seem to motivate us most are fear and greed !"
|
AGREE
|
"The failings are in the participants , not the system"
|
"Well said !"
| null | null |
2,070 | 553 |
"The failings are in the participants , not the system . The sins you enumerate would afflict us if we still lived in caves . The human condition . It can be countered . Jesus had something to say about it , among others ."
|
"Well said ! The two things that seem to motivate us most are fear and greed !"
|
AGREE
|
"The sins you enumerate would afflict us if we still lived in caves ."
|
"Well said !"
| null | null |
2,075 | 561 |
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders ."
|
"We 're you just talking about oversimplification ? I see you conveniently leave out the in depth issues that contribute to how other nations work . Police powers , government oversight , economy , the rights of the people , etc . Why do you choose to believe that the gun laws are the sole determining factor that make all the difference ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"nations"
|
"Why do you choose to believe that the gun laws are the sole determining"
| null | null |
2,074 | 561 |
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders ."
|
"We 're you just talking about oversimplification ? I see you conveniently leave out the in depth issues that contribute to how other nations work . Police powers , government oversight , economy , the rights of the people , etc . Why do you choose to believe that the gun laws are the sole determining factor that make all the difference ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders"
|
"Why do you choose to believe that the gun laws are the sole determining factor that make all the difference ?"
| null | null |
2,072 | 561 |
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders ."
|
"We 're you just talking about oversimplification ? I see you conveniently leave out the in depth issues that contribute to how other nations work . Police powers , government oversight , economy , the rights of the people , etc . Why do you choose to believe that the gun laws are the sole determining factor that make all the difference ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders ."
|
"We 're you just talking about oversimplification ?"
| null | null |
2,071 | 561 |
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders ."
|
"We 're you just talking about oversimplification ? I see you conveniently leave out the in depth issues that contribute to how other nations work . Police powers , government oversight , economy , the rights of the people , etc . Why do you choose to believe that the gun laws are the sole determining factor that make all the difference ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"In developed nations with stricter gun laws there are less murders ."
|
"We 're you just talking about oversimplification ? I see you conveniently leave out the in depth issues that contribute to how other nations work ."
| null | null |
2,078 | 562 |
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago . That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand where the populace ( by which I mean landed men in this case ) could vote to change laws . In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been . However , I do n't think that is , in fact , what Jyoshu was refering to ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"they want instead of the old fashion way , voting"
|
"I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago"
| null | null |
2,080 | 562 |
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago . That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand where the populace ( by which I mean landed men in this case ) could vote to change laws . In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been . However , I do n't think that is , in fact , what Jyoshu was refering to ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to"
|
"That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand"
| null | null |
2,077 | 562 |
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago . That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand where the populace ( by which I mean landed men in this case ) could vote to change laws . In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been . However , I do n't think that is , in fact , what Jyoshu was refering to ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago ."
| null | null |
2,079 | 562 |
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago . That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand where the populace ( by which I mean landed men in this case ) could vote to change laws . In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been . However , I do n't think that is , in fact , what Jyoshu was refering to ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been ."
| null | null |
2,076 | 562 |
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago . That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand where the populace ( by which I mean landed men in this case ) could vote to change laws . In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been . However , I do n't think that is , in fact , what Jyoshu was refering to ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"I believe he is referring to everyone going to the courts to get what they want instead of the old fashion way , voting ."
|
"And by old fashion I assume you mean Greece a couple of thousand years ago . That 's the only place and time I can think of off hand where the populace ( by which I mean landed men in this case ) could vote to change laws . In this country the correct procedure for a citizen to change an unjust law is via the courts , and always has been . However , I do n't think that is , in fact , what Jyoshu was refering to ."
| null | null |
2,085 | 563 |
"Certainly interesting . I wonder two things . I would want to look closer at the study design and two , I would like to hear a beaviorist point of view on it . What would skinner have said ? I doubt that he would have attributed the results to a `` sense of fairness `` since that is not an observable item . He likely would have stated that any two animals receiving differential rewards would have likely learned that if they wait then they also will receive a more liked item . Not a sense of justice but learning by observation . Tolman further would argue that conditioned taste responses for the monkey receiving the preferred reward would be of greater value . In other words , if they were rewarded sometime when they did n't do anything would their work rate go down compared to the other monkey ? Would the other monkey continue at the same rate although it may not accept the less preferred food ? These are important pieces I feel are missing from the information ."
|
"Those are some very interesting points you brought up . It 'd be interesting to see an experiment that could answer your questions ."
|
AGREE
|
"I wonder two things . I would want to look closer at the study design and two ,"
|
"Those are some very interesting points you brought up"
| null | null |
2,084 | 563 |
"Certainly interesting . I wonder two things . I would want to look closer at the study design and two , I would like to hear a beaviorist point of view on it . What would skinner have said ? I doubt that he would have attributed the results to a `` sense of fairness `` since that is not an observable item . He likely would have stated that any two animals receiving differential rewards would have likely learned that if they wait then they also will receive a more liked item . Not a sense of justice but learning by observation . Tolman further would argue that conditioned taste responses for the monkey receiving the preferred reward would be of greater value . In other words , if they were rewarded sometime when they did n't do anything would their work rate go down compared to the other monkey ? Would the other monkey continue at the same rate although it may not accept the less preferred food ? These are important pieces I feel are missing from the information ."
|
"Those are some very interesting points you brought up . It 'd be interesting to see an experiment that could answer your questions ."
|
AGREE
|
"In other words , if they were rewarded sometime when they did n't do anything would their work rate go down compared to the other monkey ? Would the other monkey continue at the same rate although it may not accept the less preferred food ? These are important pieces I feel are missing from the information ."
|
"Those are some very interesting points you brought up ."
| null | null |
2,089 | 564 |
"The word `` evolution `` has such a broad meaning that it does n't have to mean atheism , but it since it is practically the only weapon that atheists have to combat the religious worldview , that 's what it often DOES mean . If it should n't mean it , but it is used so that it does , then that 's what it actually means ."
|
"Actually , the word evolution never means atheism except when used by creationists who want to pretend that science is anti-christian ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"that it does n't have to mean atheism ,"
|
"the word evolution never means atheism"
| null | null |
2,088 | 564 |
"The word `` evolution `` has such a broad meaning that it does n't have to mean atheism , but it since it is practically the only weapon that atheists have to combat the religious worldview , that 's what it often DOES mean . If it should n't mean it , but it is used so that it does , then that 's what it actually means ."
|
"Actually , the word evolution never means atheism except when used by creationists who want to pretend that science is anti-christian ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"it since it is practically the only weapon that atheists have to combat the religious worldview , that 's what it often DOES mean"
|
"the word evolution never means atheism except when used by creationists who want to pretend that science is anti-christian"
| null | null |
2,087 | 564 |
"The word `` evolution `` has such a broad meaning that it does n't have to mean atheism , but it since it is practically the only weapon that atheists have to combat the religious worldview , that 's what it often DOES mean . If it should n't mean it , but it is used so that it does , then that 's what it actually means ."
|
"Actually , the word evolution never means atheism except when used by creationists who want to pretend that science is anti-christian ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"The word `` evolution `` has such a broad meaning that it does n't have to mean atheism"
|
"the word evolution never means atheism except when used by creationists who want to pretend that science is anti-christian ."
| null | null |
2,090 | 564 |
"The word `` evolution `` has such a broad meaning that it does n't have to mean atheism , but it since it is practically the only weapon that atheists have to combat the religious worldview , that 's what it often DOES mean . If it should n't mean it , but it is used so that it does , then that 's what it actually means ."
|
"Actually , the word evolution never means atheism except when used by creationists who want to pretend that science is anti-christian ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"The word `` evolution `` has such a broad meaning that it does n't have to mean atheism , but it since it is practically the only weapon that atheists have to combat the religious worldview"
|
"the word evolution never means atheism"
| null | null |
2,094 | 565 |
"You 've got to be kidding me . Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"Let 's take this slowly ... a ) Montalban is asked to give a definition of unknowables , and does so Mach : It 's illogical , merely defining it does n't prove it exists . b ) Mach is asked to show a scientific test for dark Mach : Look I do n't have a scientific test for dark , but I can prove it exists by giving a definition of it ! Once again you defy yourself ! So , merely defining 'darkness ' does not prove it exists BY SCIENCE . What you have done is to confirm that it ca n't be defined BY SCIENCE . SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT DEFINES DARKNESS . If you ca n't then we have evidence for a suggestion that something exists ( in nature ) that science ca n't test for ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"merely defining 'darkness ' does not prove it exists BY SCIENCE"
| null | null |
2,095 | 565 |
"You 've got to be kidding me . Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"Let 's take this slowly ... a ) Montalban is asked to give a definition of unknowables , and does so Mach : It 's illogical , merely defining it does n't prove it exists . b ) Mach is asked to show a scientific test for dark Mach : Look I do n't have a scientific test for dark , but I can prove it exists by giving a definition of it ! Once again you defy yourself ! So , merely defining 'darkness ' does not prove it exists BY SCIENCE . What you have done is to confirm that it ca n't be defined BY SCIENCE . SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT DEFINES DARKNESS . If you ca n't then we have evidence for a suggestion that something exists ( in nature ) that science ca n't test for ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"What you have done is to confirm that it ca n't be defined BY SCIENCE . SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT DEFINES DARKNESS ."
| null | null |
2,091 | 565 |
"You 've got to be kidding me . Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"Let 's take this slowly ... a ) Montalban is asked to give a definition of unknowables , and does so Mach : It 's illogical , merely defining it does n't prove it exists . b ) Mach is asked to show a scientific test for dark Mach : Look I do n't have a scientific test for dark , but I can prove it exists by giving a definition of it ! Once again you defy yourself ! So , merely defining 'darkness ' does not prove it exists BY SCIENCE . What you have done is to confirm that it ca n't be defined BY SCIENCE . SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT DEFINES DARKNESS . If you ca n't then we have evidence for a suggestion that something exists ( in nature ) that science ca n't test for ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You 've got to be kidding me . Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"Let 's take this slowly ... a ) Montalban is asked to give a definition of unknowables , and does so Mach : It 's illogical , merely defining it does n't prove it exists . b ) Mach is asked to show a scientific test for dark Mach : Look I do n't have a scientific test for dark , but I can prove it exists by giving a definition of it ! Once again you defy yourself ! So , merely defining 'darkness ' does not prove it exists BY SCIENCE ."
| null | null |
2,092 | 565 |
"You 've got to be kidding me . Dark : [ a region of space/time ] devoid or partially devoid of light"
|
"Let 's take this slowly ... a ) Montalban is asked to give a definition of unknowables , and does so Mach : It 's illogical , merely defining it does n't prove it exists . b ) Mach is asked to show a scientific test for dark Mach : Look I do n't have a scientific test for dark , but I can prove it exists by giving a definition of it ! Once again you defy yourself ! So , merely defining 'darkness ' does not prove it exists BY SCIENCE . What you have done is to confirm that it ca n't be defined BY SCIENCE . SHOW ME THE SCIENCE THAT DEFINES DARKNESS . If you ca n't then we have evidence for a suggestion that something exists ( in nature ) that science ca n't test for ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You 've got to be kidding me"
|
"Let 's take this slowly ... a"
| null | null |
2,099 | 566 |
"and thus science can be achieved with regards to anything that can be known ."
|
"What about speculative and theoretical sciences ? Is a circle 'real ' ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"thus science can be achieved with regards to anything that can be known ."
|
"What about speculative and theoretical sciences ?"
| null | null |
2,100 | 566 |
"and thus science can be achieved with regards to anything that can be known ."
|
"What about speculative and theoretical sciences ? Is a circle 'real ' ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"thus science can be achieved with regards to anything that can be known"
|
"What about speculative and theoretical sciences ?"
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.