harmonic said:
If that last statement is true (and I find it doubtful), then you need to be less insulting and abrasive in your responses. I personally could care less what you say, but some newbes might be put off by it.
Yes, I am insulting and abrasive to people who lie in their posts. Someday I'll bring down the wrath of the moderators for it I suspect.
How hard is it to simply tell the truth, or at least try to justify a position with some kind of evidence.
That's all I've asked of anti's I've debated on this topic over the years, and not once have they ever actually done it.
No rebuttals with statistics, facts, figures....nothing.
100% of the time it's been what happened here. They come in, make their outrageous claims then when confronted with conflicting evidence they
1) Claim the evidence is fake. Just 2 weeks ago in a thread a poster claimed that all FBI gun crime statistics were faked by FBI agents under the control of the NRA.
2) Claim a personal attack and exit the debate without having to come up with any counter evidence.
3) Stay in the debate saying the same old things but try to demonize the pro gun side with things like "You just want to sell machine guns to toddlers in Wal Mart" or other silliness like that, trying to make the topic a wedge issue between gun owners rather than actually face the fact that maybe, just maybe, gun laws don't do anything to lower the crime rate. To consider that possibility is simply beyond their ability or their willingness.
In this thread alone you can see examples of all 3 of these typical responses.
So no, I find it very hard to be nice to people who are intentionally dishonest.
I'll debate an anti any time anywhere if they will be honest, but since their entire side of the argument is based on falsehoods it just never happens. They cannot debate the issue without bringing in "gut feelings". They cannot stick to facts because the facts support absolutely NONE of their assertions. Ever.
