Raider5678

I wasn't. He asked about the psyche of students who have to live in an environment of constant threat. Israeli students live in an environment of constant threat. I wasn't equating it to the USA. Very clever though....+1

Lasse, look. Religion can't be proven. It can't be pointed out, it can't be mathematically proven, it can't be logically proven, it can't be scientifically proven, it simply can't. If it could be proven 100% without a shadow of a doubt, then virtually everyone on earth would be religious, wouldn't they? I'm assuming you're Christian based off of your posts. In Christianity, you require faith in God. If it's proven, then it's not faith. If you're not using faith, then you're believing in the evidence rather then God. Just let it go.

No. I was just saying that that is virtually every school in Israel. I wasn't trying to argue anything. Just figured it'd be an interesting tidbit of information in relation to your post.

Again, provide a quote or a citation. IMO you're not adding anything to this discussion, but I'm realizing asking you to provide evidence of your statements is not going to work because you won't. So I'll stop replying to these.

No. I said: "someone" in case you need a refresher, doesn't mean me specifically. He then turned it against me personally with this: As you can see Ten oz, "You've" is pretty much pointing at me. Where, a direct accusation against me, I can ask for a citation. He again fails to provide one. But do not fear, Ten oz is here to defend accusations regardless if they have no quote, citation, nor evidence. Don't change the goal posts. One time you're saying I just missed the point. Another time you're saying it depends on which side is doing it. Now you're saying it wasn't misleading at all.

Please provide a quote of me doing this, otherwise, your statements have no backing.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I suggested not using topics that will essentially be non-debatable.

Perhaps you're right with this, and I took it as misleading. In which case I'm wrong about their intentions, however, the result was the same. No. My distinction between what is right and wrong should not depend on what side is doing it.

I do not care about the point of it. It was openly misleading, and that is wrong on either side. Please provide a quote, otherwise your statements have no backing.

Please provide a quote where someone said this. Please provide a quote where someone said this. Please provide a quote where someone said this.

This is part of how misleading works. IT didn't directly lie to you, however, it was set up so you'd automatically make connections in your head once you read the title and the first few sentences of the article. I read the entire article. He did not say he was open to the idea of carrying in the classroom. He said he didn't think it was the right idea. That is where it misleads people. You just admitted you had created information inside your head that was not in the article. That's essentially misleading: Telling just enough truth so that someone then believes a lie. Again, this is something we simply disagree with. I firmly believe that misleading people is wrong. You don't see a problem with it as long as it's supporting your side.

If you've ever been to Israel, it's virtually every school there.

I really don't think you understand the proposal. The proposal is not forcing anyone to carry a gun, it's allowing them to. No teacher would be forced to carry a gun if they didn't want to. Yet, again with the misleading headlines from different media, they didn't technically lie but a lot of people arrived at the conclusion we were going to force them to. Actually, the law Trump proposed is basically the same law that's in more than 10 states already, like Texas and California. He never said he'd go to training. He said he knows some people would be open, however, he doesn't think it is the right approach. They technically told the truth: He didn't say he was absolutely closed to the idea. However, they definitely made it seem as though he was leaning for it. Again, some people will say the tiny misleadings don't really matter. I think they do. Because over time they build-up and it becomes the telephone game.

To be honest, I still personally think the headline was misleading. That being said, I also think that how Ten Oz keeps saying it is definitely misleading: Now, the person the article is about basically said this: "I know there are a lot of people who would be open to receiving training and carrying a gun, but I'm not really sure that'd be the right approach." So. How is that advocating for broader use? Exactly. I'm finally glad I got one person here to admit that they don't like supporting people who are misleading, even if they might technically be true. That was way harder then it should have been.

Sure. If I jump through some mental hoops I guess I can see that it's actually trying to say this...... Regardless of what it's about, it's misleading. Misleading, while not technically lying, is questionable to me. It's used all the time to further peoples agendas, scare people, and generally used to manipulate people into doing what you want. I will not defend it. I refuse to.

Then I still need the patience to deal with them.

No, I don't actually. I do need patience to put up with people however.

I'll fight for what I believe in and what I hold true to me, not what won't get me called out.

Because it misleads people into thinking it was done at the school. I know you'll immediately reply that I'm wrong, it didn't make you think that, that it was definitely not ambiguous or vague at all, that it's a perfect article, it wasn't intended to be "shocking" or "click-bait" and that they simply wanted to tell a story to people. However, I am tired of media headlines being click-bait and misleading. So I will call it out.

Yes. It does. That's a major problem when headlines are there to get people going, and not to tell the truth. Why do you think there's this massive "fake news" campaign? Because they're telling the truth?

Your point? The headline was clearly trying to mislead people.

The headline was misleading. It told the truth, yes, but it was misleading. So I provided a statement that allows people who see that link to have a quote that lets them realize it is misleading.

"I know there are some of us that are willing to take the training if it was offered and probably be another line of defence. But again, that is a complicated subject and I'm not sure if it's the answer. I think it's easier to get these types of weapons out of the hands of people that aren't meant to do anything but kill. They're not meant for hunting." - Sean Simpson

By format do you mean rules? As for topics, in my opinion, we should avoid topics that are not ever going to be conclusive(I.E. something we wouldn't be able to determine a winner because both sides typically have good points). So here are some of my own personal ideas: Should we colonize Venus instead of Mars?(This has been debated quite a bit from what I've seen, however mars usually wins. So maybe not the best topic.) Should genetic engineering for cosmetics be banned? Should governments make avoiding debt a priority or should they simply have a debt ceiling? Is population control an infringement on personal rights? Should we ban affirmative action? As for the rules(I'm assuming this is what you mean by format), I'd base it off of my state government program I'm in: All participants pick a side(referred to as pro/con) on a given statement.I.E. "We should colonize Venus instead of Mars. Pro team will then proceed to post their arguments. Each member of the pro-team get's to post a single time during a 24 hour period.(let's say days with an odd date). Con team will then proceed to post their arguments. Each member of the con-team get's to post a single time during a 24 hour period.(Let's say days with an even date). So debate would continue for a set amount of time, ending on CON everytime(since pro started it). Posts can be stand-alone or they can quote previous arguments made by participants. No cursing/name-calling. Posts that are "out of order"(wrong day by the wrong team, second post, edited after the 24 hour period, etc,) will automatically be deleted.