Discussion Thread: Black Manta vs. Guy Incognito

[digsbe]

This is the discussion thread for the debate between Black Manta and Guy Incognito which can be seen here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/true-debates/159837-black-manta-vs-guy-incognito.html

The debate will consist of an opening post, 3 posts of arguments, and a concluding post from each participant. The topic is: "Was the original intent of the 2A to protect an individual right or a militia right?"

After the debate a poll will be created where you can vote on the winner.

 

[Black Dog]

One comment on the opening salvos would have been nice.

I have no patients.

 

[Fisher]

One comment on the opening salvos would have been nice.

I have no patients.

I don't think we are supposed to comment on substance, but something GI said in his put him in a hole with me as to form.

 

[Oberon]

Both positions are indefensible, and the OPs bear that out.

 

[Black Dog]

Both positions are indefensible, and the OPs bear that out.

:roll:

And then you wonder why your posts are seen as a joke.

 

[Oberon]

:roll:

And then you wonder why your posts are seen as a joke.

Not nearly as funny as your premises will be shown to be when the debate is over and they can be discussed.

 

[Fisher]

So they have each made their 3 posts so I guess it is time for the conclusions. I feel like this has been comparable to a debate on the Oxford Comma.

 

[Guy Incognito]

So they have each made their 3 posts so I guess it is time for the conclusions. I feel like this has been comparable to a debate on the Oxford Comma.

It's not over yet, we are having a rules dispute. By my count we each still have one more post of argument then a conclusion. Manta asserts that the debate was forfeited when I post an addedum after running out of edit time on my second argument. I await a ruling from the mods.

 

[Fisher]

Well now that it has been decreed officially over, here are some of my comments:

1) GI--telling people you are going to prove something convincingly is kind of bad form and it puts you in a hole. Debates are not always about being right or wrong.

2) IIRC, neither party mentioned Shay's rebellion. That was a driving force for the Constitution and involved private militia's. I cannot believe that the arguments digressed to Scalia, and dictionaries, and grammar experts without even mentioning the facts on the ground when the Second Amendment was devised

Shays' Rebellion [ushistory.org]

Shays' Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I might recommend Lawrence M. Friedman's A History of American Law to you. It is a very dry book but it pairs up legal changes with discussions of what is going on in society through the start of the 20th Century. There is a different volume for the 20C.

Also, one of the more interesting technocratic analysis of the 2nd I have read is here:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

I think you two very quickly veered off the beaten path in some emotional pissing match way and your positions became so muddled, so quickly, I cannot say that I would have voted for either of you as the winner had you gone to your conclusions regardless of which one of you I agreed with, if either.

 

[Donc]

MAN!that was a big ass flop of a debate.:lamo

 

[azgreg]

MAN!that was a big ass flop of a debate.:lamo

They all can't be Bush v Gore.

 

[Black Dog]

Well now that it has been decreed officially over, here are some of my comments:

1) GI--telling people you are going to prove something convincingly is kind of bad form and it puts you in a hole. Debates are not always about being right or wrong.

2) IIRC, neither party mentioned Shay's rebellion. That was a driving force for the Constitution and involved private militia's. I cannot believe that the arguments digressed to Scalia, and dictionaries, and grammar experts without even mentioning the facts on the ground when the Second Amendment was devised

Shays' Rebellion [ushistory.org]

Shays' Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I might recommend Lawrence M. Friedman's A History of American Law to you. It is a very dry book but it pairs up legal changes with discussions of what is going on in society through the start of the 20th Century. There is a different volume for the 20C.

Also, one of the more interesting technocratic analysis of the 2nd I have read is here:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

I think you two very quickly veered off the beaten path in some emotional pissing match way and your positions became so muddled, so quickly, I cannot say that I would have voted for either of you as the winner had you gone to your conclusions regardless of which one of you I agreed with, if either.

Agreed. If he had not posted and then edited while I was responding, it would not have gone there. He just does not understand that in a formal debate you have set guidelines. He wanted to make them up as we went along. I said no, and finally just dropped it.

Nothing wrong with my first 2 posts at all. Of course after that it disintegrated as you said quickly.