The AEF vs. HO Debate Thread

[dt3]

Everyone else, please keep your comments to yourselves. Or I'll bitch about it.

I'll pick a topic, and say who goes first. Then the next person will get a chance to rebut what the first said. When a topic gets old/ends up going ridiculously in circles, I'll pick a new one.

This should be fun. :cool

 

[dt3]

The first topic, since HO requested religion, is:

The role religion currently has in our government, compared to the role you believe it should have.

Since HO said he's leaving, AEF is up first.

I expect a good, clean fight!

 

[NightWarrior]

You guys can't even last 5 minutes. The OP asked nicely. I will delete all nonsense other than what Donnie is asking for here...

 

[All Else Failed]

The first topic, since HO requested religion, is:

The role religion currently has in our government, compared to the role you believe it should have.

Since HO said he's leaving, AEF is up first.

I expect a good, clean fight!

The role religion has in our government is relatively low, now a days than it was a while ago, to be honest. While America remains to be largely Christian in number, our governmental system is still pretty damn secular, the way the founding fathers intended it to be. There's things like "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" that still linger, which i think should be done away with because it specifically says in the constitution that the government cannot endorse or establish any sort of religion.

Then ,there is the possibility of creationism/intelligent design being taught in public schools, which also violates many laws. Public money funding a inheritly religious program that involves the teaching of a process that involves a god? Sorry, but thats a no no. If you want to teach your kid intelligent design or creationism, do it outside of school.


I don't think religion should ever enter into the law making process or things of that nature. The founding fathers, christian, deist and secularist alike, specifically designed this nation to be for everyone, not just one kind of people.

 

[dt3]

Good post AEF. Your response, HO? Do you agree or disagree, and why?

 

[HouseOvaries]

Religion fucks up our governemnt. Keep it out.

 

[dt3]

Religion fucks up our governemnt. Keep it out.

Why should it be kept out?

 

[HouseOvaries]

Why should it be kept out?

They are two unrelated things altogether. The government forces kids to go to school and learn to make them more successful in their jobs. There is no law that states that schools should teach religion not even in the Pledge of Allegiance like AEF stated above.

 

[dt3]

They are two unrelated things altogether. The government forces kids to go to school and learn to make them more successful in their jobs. There is no law that states that schools should teach religion not even in the Pledge of Allegiance like AEF stated above.

So would you say you completely agree with AEF on this one? If so, I'll throw out another topic and you'll have first crack at it.

 

[HouseOvaries]

So would you say you completely agree with AEF on this one? If so, I'll throw out another topic and you'll have first crack at it.

Yes. I am agreeing with him on this one.

 

[dt3]

Very well then. Next subject:

Gun control. What do you think the government's role should be? Should the laws be stricter, less strict, or stay the same? How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?

HO's up first.

 

[HouseOvaries]

It all depends what laws need to be enforced, first of all. There are things like hunting laws, gun protection if someone breaks in, etc.

The hunting laws and how close to home you need to be with a firearm needs to be enforced more. There are any hunters out there that fail to abide by this rule and get in trouble. The governement needs to stop being pussies and lay down the law! If hunters choose not to listen to the law, then that's their own fault. That law needs to be enforced and more strict, in my opinion.

As for having a gun and protecting yourself, then that's a different story. I mean...if some random dude trespasses onto your property, then you should have every right to shoot him down. You're trying to protect yourself and your family if they are nearby. The government can be involved in this, but they need to make this law less strict. Stripping owners of their weapons is unfair and stupid.

 

[dt3]

It all depends what laws need to be enforced, first of all. There are things like hunting laws, gun protection if someone breaks in, etc.

The hunting laws and how close to home you need to be with a firearm needs to be enforced more. There are any hunters out there that fail to abide by this rule and get in trouble. The governement needs to stop being pussies and lay down the law! If hunters choose not to listen to the law, then that's their own fault. That law needs to be enforced and more strict, in my opinion.

As for having a gun and protecting yourself, then that's a different story. I mean...if some random dude trespasses onto your property, then you should have every right to shoot him down. You're trying to protect yourself and your family if they are nearby. The government can be involved in this, but they need to make this law less strict. Stripping owners of their weapons is unfair and stupid.

I've never heard of the part I bolded, can you post a link?

And a quick follow-up before AEF jumps in: You say stripping owners of their weapons is unfair. How do you feel about the Assault Weapons Ban?

 

[HouseOvaries]

I've never heard of the part I bolded, can you post a link?

And a quick follow-up before AEF jumps in: You say stripping owners of their weapons is unfair. How do you feel about the Assault Weapons Ban?

The bolded part came from my knowledge of gun control. I might've explained my side of the case wrong, though. It happens to me sometimes. As for the Assault Weapons Ban...I think that law has been enforced very well. There's no reasons to be carrying around deadly guns like that, unless you're in the military.

 

[dt3]

Alright AEF, you're up. Agree or disagree? Anything you want clarified?

 

[All Else Failed]

Very well then. Next subject:

Gun control. What do you think the government's role should be? Should the laws be stricter, less strict, or stay the same? How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?

HO's up first.

Obviously, there should be some sort of control. The problem is that they hardly enforce the existing laws, and keep implementing news ones that won't help. A strict background check is all thats needed, imo.

The second amendment is there for the average citizen to arm themselves in the situation that calls for it, and to own them accordingly. Oh, and overthrowing the government.

 

[HouseOvaries]

Obviously, there should be some sort of control. The problem is that they hardly enforce the existing laws, and keep implementing news ones that won't help. A strict background check is all thats needed, imo.

The second amendment is there for the average citizen to arm themselves in the situation that calls for it, and to own them accordingly. Oh, and overthrowing the government.

The government is gonna be ignorant and just ban all guns altogether...they can't even decide which gun control law to enforce. They'll start punishing everyone with no facts why it should be banned forever to make them think they've accomplished something. If they do that in the near future, then they're idiots. I sure hope they are smarter than that, because not everyone disobeys the gun control laws we currently have at the moment. Just let the government take their time and no screw it up and we'll all be good to go.

 

[dt3]

If you two can't stop agreeing, I'm gonna change the rules. I'll randomly pick a side for each of you to defend, so it can be an actual debate instead of a bunch of :homo:. Let's see if y'all can disagree on this one.

Euthanasia. Right or wrong? Does the government have the right to tell terminally ill patients that they can't die?

 

[All Else Failed]

If you two can't stop agreeing, I'm gonna change the rules. I'll randomly pick a side for each of you to defend, so it can be an actual debate instead of a bunch of :homo:. Let's see if y'all can disagree on this one.

Euthanasia. Right or wrong? Does the government have the right to tell terminally ill patients that they can't die?

I don't think the government has any place telling private citizens what to do with their bodies. If a person wants to die, let them.

 

[HouseOvaries]

I agree with AEF. Great job Donnie...way to pick a disagreeable argument. =\