Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


TheNotorious's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of TheNotorious's arguments, looking across every debate.

I said I can pull up thousands of gang violence murders that are done with Machetes.

The fact that people kill each other with machetes is a reason NOT TO GIVE THEM GUNS, not a reason TO give them guns. Omfg. Am I really explaining this to you?

If I was your English teacher you'd get a very low score for reading comprehension.

Were. Retard.

The percentage of psychopaths in the room is 100%. God you're a fucking no common sense dumbass.

Wtf? The claim was that more people have died since the invention of guns. Nothing you are saying has ANY RELATIONSHIP to that claim. The mental gymnastics performed by yourself and Amarel in order to avoid admitting you are completely wrong is RETARDED.

Less total homicides vs less percentage of homicides per the total population

That's right. Well done for finally getting something right. Unfortunately however, neither yourself nor Amarel have been honest enough to mention that the increased historical presence and jurisdiction of law were responsible for declining homicide rates.

If I put you in a room with 20 psychopaths, the room isn't safer because there are a total of more psychopaths outside the room.

And you are back into retard mode again. I have no idea what this even means. I told you to go back to school an hour ago. You honestly should have listened to me.

Homocide rates were much higher.

But there were much less homicides because there were much less people. Instead of just admitting you said something stupid, you try to distort language around it. Homicide rates mean absolutely nothing to the topic under discussion you idiotic prick.

I’ve already provided sources.

No, you have not, you idiotic liar. A source is something you link to verify a claim. Your sources did not verify your claim, which makes them blind link drops.

Look up any ancient battles

OK. How about the most famous battle in British history? Will that do?

The exact numbers present at the battle are unknown; modern estimates are around 10,000 for William and about 7,000 for Harold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleofHastings

GO TO SCHOOL. YOU'RE A RETARD.

You made the broad sweeping claim

Demonstrably untrue. I responded to your (i.e. "Spud's") broad sweeping claim. The timestamps on the posts prove it, Nazi boy.

It shows that battles in the past consisted of more ground forces by far

No, it doesn't. Cherry-picking one particular battle off a Wikipedia page says absolutely nothing about any other battles. You're literally stupid.

First, you've given no evidence of this claim.

Completely false. I linked the Wikipedia pages so you can check for yourself. Everything you say -- literally EVERYTHING -- is a lie.

Second, even if it were true, it would be because populations are greater.

So your first point was to demand evidence I've already given you, and your second point was to make a random statement of fact supported by absolutely no evidence?? OMG you're such a stupid hypocrite. It's absolutely endearing. Lol!!

Third. Even if you could prove more deaths now

I have proven it. You need to use the past tense.

that would not disprove that without guns people still fight wars and still kill each other.

Then I suppose it's fortunate nobody except you has ever made that claim. All you seem to know how to do is LIE about what other people have said, isn't it, Nazi boy?

Fourth

Fourth, based on the first three, this one is going to be stupid too. Not even going to bother reading it.

It's a lie to claim the Democrat Party isn't heavily supported by socialists.

You didn't claim the "Democrat Party is heavily supported by socialists". You literally claimed the Democrats were Communists and that you needed to "defeat them". You are a militant neo-Nazi RETARD.

Bronto, wtf does the size of the Persian army in the "Battle of Thermopylae" have to do with anything? Obviously a lot more people have died since the invention of guns, because since then we have had two world wars, which alone killed close to 100 million people.

Nothing you say is true. Everything you say is false. You're a retarded neo-Nazi imbecile who is still stewing about the three years he wasted cheating the points system on CD only to have his account banned for systematic abuse.

TheNotorious Lie counter: 81

You think it's a lie to point out that the American Democrat Party is capitalist? Bronto, you're literally retarded. Go away you stupid Nazi imbecile.

That’s incorrect.

No, it very obviously is not. I can blind link drop too, you complete imbecile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumberofdeathsintheSovietUnionunderJosephStalin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWarIIcasualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWarIcasualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

Clearly it has escaped your rather limited attention, but the population of the world has exploded in recent centuries. In 1800 there were less than a billion people. Today there are over seven billion.

How many people died in wars and assaults prior to the invention of the gun again?

A LOT LESS than died AFTER it, you retard.

The best way to solve problems that Democrats shout about is the finger. There's no middle ground between freedom and Communists. You just defeat them.

Shut up with your idiotic neo-Nazi bullshit you retard. Democrats are capitalists. They have nothing to do with Communism. And you didn't defeat Communism in the first place. Sure, the Soviet system collapsed: followed 16 years later by your own system.

Then we waive a magic wand and all guns are gone from Society. And we look at next year.

We have 100,000 Homicides again.

So your "point" is make-believe statistics which you have literally invented yourself to "prove" a hypothetical point? Wtf?

But 0% involve a gun because they no longer exist! How Wonderful we stopped gun violence.

Denying the relationship between guns and violence is ridiculous. When you put tools designed to kill into the hands of everyday people then what do you expect they are going to do with them, you IDIOT? Do you think they are going to use them to make toast with?

Would you buy a car and not drive it? Would you buy a swimming pool and not swim in it?

Guns are not the problem.

Clearly they are the problem and you are just delusional as a result of living in a culture which has BRAINWASHED you.

Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.

But it DOES resolve the issue, because if you make it DIFFICULT for people to commit suicide, then less people are going to commit suicide. When you ENCOURAGE it by selling them the means to end their lives instantly and relatively painlessly, then guess what's going to happen moron?

Guns aren't the problem? Lmfao. You're retarded.

Do you actually read my posts?

I stopped reading them the moment you tried to conflate attack with defence.

Weapons are Tools.

For killing people. I notice you left that part out, Rambo.

TheNotorious(14) Clarified
1 point

Not in privilege, but definitely advantage.

This is just semantics, Marcus. People who have advantages are privileged.

People lose that advantage all the time. Family wealth is hardly a guarantee of success

Family wealth IS success. If your family is wealthy then you are "successful" without even doing anything, aka Paris Hilton.

and is useless in the face of laziness and unwillingness to work within societal norms.

Utter nonsense. Being lazy doesn't rid you of money you already have. Laziness is the excuse rich people use for why poor people haven't got any money. If the rich are lazy too then who is doing all the work in society?

The top 1% is a statistical point on a distribution, not a single group of people whose progeny all stay at the same point in the distribution.

But the demonstrable reality is that the vast majority of them DO stay at the same point, or more frequently they INCREASE their wealth, since it is much easier to make money when you have lots of it already, aka Donald Trump. The fact is that the same family names recur over and over and over again when looking at the history of wealth.

Consider that the richest people in the US did not start out that way. Rockefeller and Carnegie both grew up poor

Just factually untrue:-

Yet the Rockefeller family has defied all of that. Now entering its seventh generation with as many as 170 heirs, the Rockefeller family has maintained substantial wealth — they had an $11 billion fortune in 2016, according to Forbes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/david-rockefeller-jr-shares-4-secrets-to-wealth-and-family.html

You are wildly distorting the truth to make a radically unfair system (i.e. capitalism) appear to be fair.

0 points

You mean the British in most of your examples, to be specific.

He means whites, because that's what the debate is about, retard. Can you read what the debate is about or do you need assistance?

NOM says the sky is not a proper noun okay then ! So DUMMY there must not be a sky !

Sure, that's the way it works Outlaw. Apples isn't a proper noun either, so therefore there must not be any apples. You must have been the smart one up there in Alabama.



Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]