sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
This is why I hate oral debates. You can't really meaningfully address the issues. It's easy to spout a few numbers in 30 seconds. How can one point out the fact that most of America's "gun violence" is already the direct result of prior forms of prohibition and the self-fulfilling prophecies they represent. This is the single, inescapable, and unsurmountable fatal flaw of the prohibitionist position – the fact that prohibition will always make things worse. Even in the UK it has done so, where automatic weapons now proliferate in a black market depleted of "civilian" weapons. Russia? Mexico? Brazil? Don't make me laugh.
But how can you convincingly make that point within the duration of a conversational attention span? Much less a debate?
Still, though, sounds like you pwnd anyway. Good job! And, yes, do tell: did you OC?
I fully expected to go in and get the short end of the stick on the debate.
It ended up being almost 2 hrs long. I got 3, 10 min sections to cover my material....the best stuff was done in between though on the question and cross examinations....and the tons of questions by the students. He was basically stuck arguing that armed civilians would escalate a situation when SWAT came kicking in your door......Which I was able to counter with approving nods by the audience that we need to get rid of no knock warrants and that was a problem with prohibition too....
No I didn't OC, I was asked by the moderator not too, so I empty holstered, it but was able to mention OC several times, and had many questions after the debate about it. Was pretty cool having a group of students surrounding me after asking questions.