It is illogical to state we shouldn't process who can or can't have a gun because if anyone can purchase firearms, that means anyone with histories of criminality, malevolent agendas and/or mental health issues can easily acquire firearms for all sorts of grave intents and purposes.
Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Gun Debate    gonna die   responsible individuals   people  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"I" do not want to process anything; let people decide, as far as I am concerned. I am not a "we", I am an "I".
People should stop believing that "government" and "we" is synonymous, and realise that there is no "we", there is only a collection of "I"-s, and one government.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 73%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: serious mental illness    convicted felon   history of drug abuse   single law  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: A government isn't selfish by necessity, as these things are matters of how we structure and implement governing power, not to say a totally uncorrupt system can arise but this point of yours is still a fallacy nonetheless.
Since you claim to be an absolute individualist, do you recognize that the lack of order will easily allow power vacuums and vast instability?
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: uncorrupt system    fallacy nonetheless.Since   absolute individualist   government  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: So the government also shouldn't be empowered to pursue anti-murder laws since people still murder?
The purpose of a law is to, while knowing it may happen to some degree, prevent an undesired action as much as humanly possible.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: anti-murder laws    government   purpose of a law   people  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: The point is explained in my response. Just because a law doesn't stop all crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued, as is the nature of your argument. You need a better defense of your position.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: better defense of your position    law   point   nature of your argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Background checks? Why? Let all the crazies have guns, that'll give people a good reason to get even more guns and more opportunities to actually use them properly...
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: good reason    Background checks   guns   people  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: My argument isn't necessarily predicated upon the particulars of U.S. federal or stare laws, but rather as a principle based upon objectivity. If we are to allow guns in society, there must be policies to block those with undesired traits or backgrounds from acquiring them to prevent people with deficiencies from causing harm to broader society. That's just basic logic. If you desire to debate me, bring to me a logical case for why we shouldn't pursue an in-depth vetting process for gun purchasers.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: undesired traits    logical case   particulars of U.S.   argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: I don't have to visit exact laws and empirical data in relation to individual nations or territories to arrive to my conclusion.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: empirical data    exact laws   individual nations   relation  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: I have posted a cogent argument. If we allow guns in society, we need to prevent those who'd, for whatever reason or cause, bring about harm to others in society with said guns via law enforcement. This is a very strengthened argument and you still have yet to propose a logical, objective counterattack to this position.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: strengthened argument    cogent argument   law enforcement   society  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: So, tell me, why, in fact, should we not use law enforcement to filter out who should or shouldn't be allowed access to firearms? What's your logical refutation to me?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: law enforcement    logical refutation   fact   access  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: I missed your first point so I'll address it now. In essence, your argument is that, in the United States, it is already illegal for felons or those mentally incompetent to possess firearms, but it still happens and major gun crimes like mass shootings still happen regardless, so there is no point in pursuing further governmental efforts to enforce such vetting processes.
To address your point as appropriately as possible, let's go through a logical thought process. Is the premise of a vetting process flawed to begin with? No, because, as mentioned before, it is illogical to allow just anyone to possess a gun as you would easily allow for tainted individuals to harm others in society. Should we not pursue this vetting process because there are lawbreakers? No, because the existence of lawbreakers is not sufficient to justify the abandonment of a law. A law is a preventative measure, not a measure that stops a particular crime at all instances 100.00% of the time. So, since we've established that, objectively, both the foundations and pursuit of a firearm vetting process are perfectly logical, this must mean that the reason that the United State is still seeing related gun crimes at such a massive scale is not because the law or its enforcement innately is flawed, but rather we can infer that instead there must be flaws within how the United States, as an individual sovereign nation, is exactly managing the situation at hand, which can mean one or a combination of potential issues like legal loopholes, loopholes within individual states, underfunding of related institutions, potential risks with various private venues, so on and so forth.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: United States    major gun crimes   United State   mass shootings  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
If there are no power systems in place, then there can be no power vacuum. The assumption that the government is the only entity that can guarantee stability in this regard is unfounded.
The government is selfish because any organisation is. The natural tendency of any organisation is to expand as much as it can and take as much control over the world around it as it can. And since the government is the only entity that does not compete with any other entity, it is the one that can realise its selfish dreams the best.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: only entity    natural tendency of any organisation   power systems   unfounded.The government  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you're against background checks??
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: background checks         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are gun crimes being committed on a "massive scale"?
Yes, by the creation of Ex Post Facto law changing the state of evidence of death as murder from bullet to gun massive scale gun crimes occur, faster then they can be regulated by law. An unconstitutional united state is created as no compensation is offered on personal property. A fine instead is to take compensations place. To own a fire-arm as private armory is a duty providing a state of independence between Armed Service to American Constitution, President or Presadera of these United states of America...
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: Well, the goal of any law should be to prevent wrongdoing 100 % of the time, but it's just not likely a possible feat. A law should serve to diminish an undesired action as much as its enforcement can possibly achieve. Also, it's not just murder, but any crime in which a firearm is involved, which can involve burglary, robbery, et cetera. So, in short, the goal of a legal firearm vetting process should be to diminish the capacity for those who would harm society with guns from being able to attain them as much as can be achieved by enforcement. Do you agree with this in principle? If no, why?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: goal of any law    goal of a legal firearm   et cetera   firearm  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Who's asking for a stop to private sales? I never did...
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private sales    stop      
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Saying they are problematic in no way means I want to stop them... I'm saying that they should be subject to federal background check requirements too, that's all.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: background check    way   requirements   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Reading problems I see... Care to explain how requiring private sellers/buyers to be subjected to federal background checks equates to stopping all private sales?
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private sellers    federal background checks   Care   buyers  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: If we're to ensure that those with criminalistic backgrounds, malevolent agendas and/or mental illness can't acquire firearms, that means we need to make sure that gun sellers abide strictly by these codes, undergo background checks and do psychological evaluations of individuals who seek to purchase firearms. That seems at least the start of what would spawn from such a policy.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mental illness    background checks   criminalistic backgrounds   malevolent agendas  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: I'm still wanting you to propose your logical, objective principle as to why we shouldn't pursue vetting processes in these matters. The most I've seen to have gotten out of you thus far is the claim that since lawbreakers exist, the law itself shouldn't exist. I hope there is more to your line of reasoning than that.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: objective principle    line of reasoning   claim   processes  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: When I state malevolent agendas, I mean that it is clear that one holds great hostility towards an individual or group for whatever reason. Now, of course, this may be hard to prove or evaluate depending on the circumstance but it certainly is one worth discerning. In terms of policy specifics, I can't go too deep into exact policy because I'm not proficient enough in understanding all the intricacies of all the elements that go into things like psychology, the processes involved with checking people's backgrounds, so on and so on. I can submit what I want to happen on a broad basis because that is evident to me within my spectrum of understanding, but I don't know enough to detail all the means to go about lining out exact policy points. I'm simply not going to talk on where my expertise doesn't lie.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: terms of policy specifics    exact policy   broad basis   spectrum of understanding  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: "It's working fine just the way it is" is too vague of an argument to suffice for an actual opposition counterposition. I want you to tell me what your objective philosophy is on this matter. Why exactly do you oppose a vetting process? Go into detail about your views.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Re: Well, we can debate general ideas while not knowing all the underlying details because we can examine things from a more surface level and still take away logical conclusions. For example, just because I don't know all the specifics about the logging industry doesn't mean I can't arrive to the conclusion that we shouldn't cut down all the trees in the world. To your second point, if you don't entirely oppose a vetting process, what is it you've found contention with to begin with?
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: second point    general ideas   logging industry   surface level  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra