debate

Im not suuuuuuper knowledgeable its that anybody who wants to do away with the EC is just braindead on why it exists and the good it does. The EC makes sure that population dense places dont overwhelm and disparage those in less dense populated areas. Its more than the thing that favors republicans. It is a conservative ideology thus will benefit a conservative based party. Lamby you made a comment before Id like to bring up to clarify what I mean. You said (paraphrasing) why would you support something that hampers liberals/democrats. This makes it seem like since republicans benefit that it has to be bad and that is a very partisan view. How would you feel if you and people who share your views could completely disregard your views by political mob fiat - from people nowhere near you nor those who experience anything near what you do? The EC prevents this on a national level or at minimum guards against this very atrocity. In a direct democracy ONLY the majority matter. The reason why you should support the EC even if it burns democrats nationally is because it protects the people of the minority opinion and prevents like half the country from being disenfranchised. It protects the voice of the minority (opinion). It also prevents a select few areas from dominating the country so more needs and values need to be addressed.

well that was an opinionated point i was making that does influence my ideas of the ec being a bad idea, ofcourse i disagree with republican ideals so it only makes sense i would rather lose what they have that sways the votes in their favor the population themselves are voting democrat while the point system favors republicans (thanks to states like florida) i find it odd your calling me out on this (not that im angry about it, as i can see why you would heavily disagree on what i said) but not tabris's points? i really wanna see you do debate it out >w> your more knowledgeable than me on this and im sure tabris is no expert either

I mostly picked at you to 1. Inform you why you should / why people do. I can and do disagree with liberalism but I can still understand it and its appeals and good that comes from it. The EC really just protects less populated areas and gives everyone the fairest chance really. It also decentralizes power which also has its benefits. If attitudes changed and there was a huge conservative shift then the EC would benefit democrats. 2. Tabris has more substance behind his views and speaks more toward corrupt politicians from what I gathered thus not purely anti EC. Im also down to debate guns more than anything. Ive been looking for good "gun safety" views but I have yet to find a compelling one.

isnt that why you should debate him though? why debate someone who doesnt know as much, it doesnt make as fufilling of debate if it just turns into a discussion i wouldnt want to debate a vegetarian on veganism xD

The main beef I have with the EC is that in most states winner takes all. Im not sure how a split would work vs the current winner take all but that is a much more valid debate than abolishing the EC altogether. Also my beef with your point is that your opposition seems entirely based on partisanship and its end result as opposed to pure ideology. The "it doesnt benefit me so it has to be bad" this is very closed minded way of going about it. I went to you over Tabris is that he explains himself better and presents a more well thought out and sound point.

If I were to debate tabris on anything itd be his couple ignorant liberal talking points on guns. 1. His viewed shared by many about the NRA. The NRA is unquestionably the most knowledgeable gun safety organization in America. The "gun people" are 1000% more gun safety culture than the Brady campaign or Everytown could even pretend to be. To say theyre just bought by gun manufacturers and profit from murder are is a purely braindead thought of pure ignorance. 2. "Mentally unstable people shouldnt have guns". I actually agree with this in THEORY. However the devil in the details is in PRACTICE. How do you keep the crazies from guns while NOT depriving the general public. Who would be making the rules of "crazy"? If these laws target JUST the legit crazy have at it - but these "common sense" laws never do

again, isnt that WHY you should debate him? that hes a worthy opponent that can hold his own? also *still waitin on someone to debate me on veganism*

@napalm, crazy can be put into categories the people who shouldnt have guns are 1. people who can not safely operate them (the blind or someone with parkinsons syndrome or someone who simply does not handle the gun properly [like holding it with their trigger on the finger or pointing it at someone just to show off or someone who fails a gun range test even]) 2. someone who has a mental impairment that makes it difficult for them to distinguish what is real and what is not (people with schizophrenia for example) hell, i wouldnt want someone with gad (generalized anxiety disorder, an issue i have) or chronic depression to own one because i believe they would be a risk to others and themselves

Lamby I was in agreement right until that very last part. Some are clear cut like schizophrenia but opening the "crazy ban" to less severe gray areas is something else. Like is chronic depression the barrier or something like dysthemia enough? What about a less severe depression. Is an anxiety didorder enough? My point being where is the line and where would it stop. It seems many who are already in that boat like yourself already wont own a gun which is fine where my issue is denying others a right you willingly forsake.