Discussion Thread: Ludin vs Jet57 [W:26, 61]

[digsbe]

A true debate was held between Ludin and Jet 57. This is a poll to vote on who you believe delivered the strongest debate performance. It is requested that people vote based on debate performance and not based on which side you personally agree with. This is also the place to discuss or debate their points brought up and continuing the discussion with the rest of the forum.

The link to the debate is here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/true-debates/258566-true-debate-between-ludin-and-jet57-new-post.html

 

[Hawkeye10]

This is so ****ing cool.

Time to go read.

:cowboy:

 

[Kobie]

Jet would have been better served going up against a stronger opponent. Ludin's entire argument was literally one logical fallacy after another.

I'm not necessarily saying Jet was 100% right, but he won the debate going away.

 

[TheGoverness]

I've got to hand the victory to Jet.

Even though I didn't 100% agree with everything he said, I personally think he did a much better job than ludin did in the debate.

 

[Surrealistik]

Jet would have been better served going up against a stronger opponent. Ludin's entire argument was literally one logical fallacy after another.

I'm not necessarily saying Jet was 100% right, but he won the debate going away.

This.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Ludins open is bizarre, it feels like he started off on a long front porch soliloquy, eventually stopping to give the other guy a chance to talk... Oh, so we are done now. But dude, I still dont know why you are here, a point that Jet immediately nails you on re "no thesis". The story was somewhat interesting but it was so dry and bloodless too. But the main thing as I said, I have no context, because I dont know the most important thing, What do you care about and why you care about it? I have no clue.

Jet was more lively to be sure. Thesis at the end...OK, I guess. O'God, this already sounds like it might devolve into personal sniping, pushed by Jet at least.

One thing rubbed me majorily raw:
Jet Said:

Here we should say something about The Founding Fathers: a ubiquitous term adored by conservative politicians that suggests a hallowed group of silver haired men with provenance of deity sweeping their arms as they preached the gospel of liberty and democracy… One of such men at the constitutional convention was Jonathon Dayton of New Jersey, who was 26 at the time, and 11 at the Declaration in 1776. Thomas Jefferson was 33 then. At the convention of 1787, the ages of some of the more popular framers were: Alexander Hamilton (NY) Age: 30, Thomas Jefferson (VA) Age: 44, John Hancock (MA) Age:51, George Washington (VA) Age: 55, Benjamin Franklin (PA) Age: 81; the only one that could be considered a “sliver haired founder”

What does the age of the founders have to do with gun control? Short of a reason, why are we here? And Oh By The Way, average lifespan was around 40 at the time, and clean living might well get a founder another 15 years getting us to 55. The "popular founders" you list are pretty dang tootin old.
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/
here is the real ages of delegates:

Age — 20s
Jonathon Dayton (NJ) — (1760 — 1824) — Age: 26
John F. Mercer (MD) — (1759 – 1821) — Age: 28
Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) — (1758 – 1802) — Age: 29
Charles Pinckney (SC) — (1757 – 1824) — Age: 29

Age – 30s
William R. Davie (NC) — (1756 – 1820) — Age: 30
Alexander Hamilton (NY) — (1757 – 1804) — Age: 30
Nicholas Gilman (NH) — (1755 – 1814) — Age: 32
William Houstoun (GA) — (1755 – 1813) — Age: 32
Rufus King (MA) — (1755 – 1827) — Age: 32
John Lansing, Jr. (NY) — (1754 – 1829) — Age: 32
Abraham Baldwin (GA) — (1754 – 1807) — Age: 33
Edmund J. Randolph (VA) — (1753 – 1813) — Age: 34
Gouverneur Morris (PA) — (1752 – 1816) — Age: 35
Jacob Broom (DE) — (1752 – 1810) — Age: 35
James Madison Jr. (VA) — (1751 – 1836) — Age: 36
Jared Ingersoll (PA) — (1749 – 1822) — Age: 37
William Few (GA) — (1748 – 1828) — Age: 39
Luther Martin (MD) — (1748 – 1826) — Age: 39

Age – 40s
Gunning Bedford, Jr. (DE) — (1747 – 1812) — Age: 40
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) — (1746 – 1825) — Age: 41
William C. Houston (NJ) — (1746 – 1788) — Age: 41
James McClurg (VA) — (1746 – 1823) — Age: 41
William Paterson (NJ) — (1745 – 1806) — Age: 41
Richard Bassett (DE) — (1745 – 1815) — Age: 42
Oliver Ellsworth (CT) — (1745 – 1807) — Age: 42
David Brearly (NJ) — (1745 – 1790) — Age: 42
Caleb Strong (MA) — (1745 – 1819) — Age: 42
Pierce Butler (SC) — (1744 – 1822) — Age: 43
William Blount (NC) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
Elbridge Gerry (MA) — (1744 – 1814) — Age: 43
Thomas Mifflin (PA) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
James McHenry (MD) — (1743 – 1816) — Age: 44
James Wilson (PA) — (1742 – 1798) — Age: 45
John Langdon (NH) — (1741 – 1818) — Age: 46
Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) — (1741 – 1811) — Age: 46
Alexander Martin (NC) — (1740 – 1807) — Age: 47
William L. Pierce (GA) — (1740 – 1789) — Age: 47
George Clymer (PA) — (1739 – 1813) — Age: 48
John Rutledge (SC) — (1739 – 1800) — Age: 48
Nathaniel Gorham (MA) — (1738 – 1796) — Age: 49
Robert Yates (NY) — (1738 – 1801) — Age: 49

Age – 50+
Hugh Williamson (NC) — (1735 – 1819) — Age: 52
Robert Morris (PA) — (1734 – 1806) — Age: 53
George Read (DE) — (1733 – 1798) — Age: 53
John Blair (VA) — (1732 – 1800) — Age: 55
John Dickinson (DE) — (1732 – 1808) — Age: 55
George Washington (VA) — (1732 – 1799) — Age: 55
Daniel Carroll (MD) — (1730 – 1796) — Age: 57
William Samuel Johnson (CT) — (1727 – 1819) — Age: 59
George Wythe (VA) — (1726 – 1806) — Age: 61
George Mason (VA) — (1725 – 1792) — Age: 62
William Livingston (NJ) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 63
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 64
Roger Sherman (CT) — (1721 – 1793) — Age: 66
Benjamin Franklin (PA) — (1706 – 1790) — Age: 81

The Age of the Delegates in 1787 | Teaching American History

AKA generally OLD.

I am trying to figure out if this is about you not knowing what you are talking about, or was this theatrics through deception? In any case, I am remembering.


I give the open to Jet, only because I got a thesis and some semblance of organization.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The basic (failed) argument of Jet57 is that since we have a cabinet level, federal department of education then education becomes (always was?) a constitutional federal power even if it is never mentiond in the constitution. In other words, whatever congress critters pass and the POTUS signs into law is constitutional. That renders what the constitution actually says meaningless - thus he lost the debate.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Jet would have been better served going up against a stronger opponent. Ludin's entire argument was literally one logical fallacy after another.

I'm not necessarily saying Jet was 100% right, but he won the debate going away.

Jet57's entire argument was that the 2A does not matter if keeping, carrying or selling a "banned" gun is declared a crime.

 

[Kobie]

Jet57's entire argument was that the 2A does not matter if keeping, carrying or selling a "banned" gun is declared a crime.

I didn't find that so, but again, my assessment of the debate really wasn't an endorsement of Jet's arguments, it was ludin's complete lack of one other than dictionary definitions, QED.

 

[notquiteright]

The basic (failed) argument of Jet57 is that since we have a cabinet level, federal department of education then education becomes (always was?) a constitutional federal power even if it is never mentiond in the constitution. In other words, whatever congress critters pass and the POTUS signs into law is constitutional. That renders what the constitution actually says meaningless - thus he lost the debate.

I do believe the question was about debate skills, not topic. (FYI you failed- you left off part of the process- The Supreme Court ruling if a law is indeed Constitutional so it isn't just a case of "whatever congress critters pass" as the Supreme Court has struck down quite a few laws of both State and Federal bodies.)

But thanks for playing... eace

 

[Hawkeye10]

THese guys put a lot of time into this, we are to give them substantial useful criticism, yes?

Surely we can come up with 50 words for each on how they did.

 

[ludin]

Jet would have been better served going up against a stronger opponent. Ludin's entire argument was literally one logical fallacy after another.

I'm not necessarily saying Jet was 100% right, but he won the debate going away.

Lol you have no idea what a logical fallacy is.
Otherwise you would know that is all jet did.

He couldn't address a single point I brought up,
But your bias in this topic is noted.
More like bias towards me but doesn't matter.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I do believe the question was about debate skills, not topic. (FYI you failed- you left off part of the process- The Supreme Court ruling if a law is indeed Constitutional so it isn't just a case of "whatever congress critters pass" as the Supreme Court has struck down quite a few laws of both State and Federal bodies.)

But thanks for playing... eace

Which are the "quite a few" federal gun control laws that have been struck down by the SCOTUS on 2A grounds?

 

[woodsman]

I didn't find that so, but again, my assessment of the debate really wasn't an endorsement of Jet's arguments, it was ludin's complete lack of one other than dictionary definitions, QED.

Could you point out where Ludin directly quoted from a dictionary? The only time I see it is when he quotes Jet doing it.

 

[ludin]

Ludins open is bizarre, it feels like he started off on a long front porch soliloquy, eventually stopping to give the other guy a chance to talk... Oh, so we are done now. But dude, I still dont know why you are here, a point that Jet immediately nails you on re "no thesis". The story was somewhat interesting but it was so dry and bloodless too. But the main thing as I said, I have no context, because I dont know the most important thing, What do you care about and why you care about it? I have no clue.

Jet was more lively to be sure. Thesis at the end...OK, I guess. O'God, this already sounds like it might devolve into personal sniping, pushed by Jet at least.

One thing rubbed me majorily raw:
Jet Said:

What does the age of the founders have to do with gun control? Short of a reason, why are we here? And Oh By The Way, average lifespan was around 40 at the time, and clean living might well get a founder another 15 years getting us to 55. The "popular founders" you list are pretty dang tootin old.
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/
here is the real ages of delegates:


The Age of the Delegates in 1787 | Teaching American History

AKA generally OLD.

I am trying to figure out if this is about you not knowing what you are talking about, or was this theatrics through deception? In any case, I am remembering.


I give the open to Jet, only because I got a thesis and some semblance of organization.

If you notice he never posted a source for that quote either and there is good reason for it.
Even though I asked him numerous times for a source.

It wasn't a person snipe as much as it was ad hominem. Yet another fallacy in his list of many

 

[Crovax]

If you notice he never posted a source for that quote either and there is good reason for it.
Even though I asked him numerous times for a source.

It wasn't a person snipe as much as it was ad hominem. Yet another fallacy in his list of many

Well it could have been accurate but it's still an ignorant statement as that number is heavily weighed down by infant deaths. Take the middle ages where the average lifespan was in the mid 30s or so, if you made it to 21 years old back then the average lifespan for you was expected to be 71 years old.

 

[jet57]

If you notice he never posted a source for that quote either and there is good reason for it.
Even though I asked him numerous times for a source.

It wasn't a person snipe as much as it was ad hominem. Yet another fallacy in his list of many

Ya'know, you and I should really not be posting in this thread, as it distracts the discussion.

just sayin...

 

[ludin]

Ya'know, you and I should really not be posting in this thread, as it distracts the discussion.

just sayin...

You do what you want you are not a mod.
You don't tell me what to do. If digsbe says the wise I will
Quit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Jet57's entire argument was that the 2A does not matter if keeping, carrying or selling a "banned" gun is declared a crime.

Truth, I am going to read the entire arguments again. But Jet didn't even understand what the Brady bill did. Jet engaged in a modified Ontological argument of government power.

 

[woodsman]

Lol you have no idea what a logical fallacy is.
Otherwise you would know that is all jet did.

He couldn't address a single point I brought up,
But your bias in this topic is noted.
More like bias towards me but doesn't matter.

I found Jets source material lacking, It was asserted by Kobie that Ludin was just quoting from a dictionary, that is not an accurate statement, In fact, it was Jet doing that very thing on five occasions. On two occasions he used reference opinion pieces from the Washington post and CBS news as fact material. There were other questionable sources also,”Think big” and ”Science alert” to name a few. At times he even resorted to quoting himself, I’m unclear If this was just a repeat tactic or he just ran out of material and thought to argue

Jet also asserted that the Laws that California has passed should in some fashion become the gold standard or there conclusions in some way supersede the 2nd amendment. Personally I put very little faith or weight on the opinions of law makers in California.

 

[woodsman]

I've got to hand the victory to Jet.

Even though I didn't 100% agree with everything he said, I personally think he did a much better job than ludin did in the debate.

Could you enlighten us or expand on this decision?

 

[woodsman]

Ya'know, you and I should really not be posting in this thread, as it distracts the discussion.

just sayin...

If this is your stance then why have you continually critiqued on other platforms and threads? Taking the fake high ground while posting from the gutter is sort of deceitful, yes?

 

[MACS-24]

If this is your stance then why have you continually critiqued on other platforms and threads? Taking the fake high ground while posting from the gutter is sort of deceitful, yes?

I think what Jet was getting at was this is a vote and comment on the debate and their participation may skewer the results ( a grading if you will, not necessarily a discussion with them but about them). I see his point if I read him correctly however I think they should participate here. I do not know what any rules might say on this.

 

[woodsman]

I think what Jet was getting at was this is a vote and comment on the debate and their participation may skewer the results ( a grading if you will, not necessarily a discussion with them but about them). I see his point if I read him correctly however I think they should participate here. I do not know what any rules might say on this.

I understand your point, but try to understand mine. Jet for some time has been feeding other platforms and threads with comment. It got to a point that I thought it ok to comment elsewhere. To now take and claim the high ground (ant dung) is a bit ridiculous in my view. Let’s note: we are talking about the same audience or even more selective than the other platform.

 

[MACS-24]

I understand your point, but try to understand mine. Jet for some time has been feeding other platforms and threads with comment. It got to a point that I thought it ok to comment elsewhere. To now take and claim the high ground (ant dung) is a bit ridiculous in my view. Let’s note: we are talking about the same audience or even more selective than the other platform.

It just doesn't apply here. It starts with a "true debate" between only two people (all other buttinskys will be pruned) then a separate thread is made to discuss and vote (this thread) Since Jet was one of the participants in the true debate, he felt it was not appropriate for both to enter this thread. An appropriate concern of his.