Kevin, it amazes me that you proposed to set up a Debate Forum here on the UT. It appears that you still have a lot to learn about proper debating.

This was my original paragraph:
I offer you a non-lethal weapon that can be used to defend yourself. You reject the offer because you want an 'equalizer'. I suspect revenge feelings and mention that unethical. Then you claim that it's not unethical to defend oneself.

That paragraph was an outline of our debate sofar and my reaction was in the next paragraph, essentially: Sure, that's not unethical. But my initial offer gave you that right and you rejected it..

But you decided to tear the outline paragraph into two sections and place comments on them. That was a stupid thing to do and I now have doubt about the usefulness of our conversation here. Perhaps you can reread and retry? If not, then we better stop here.



>>>I offer you a non-lethal weapon that can be used to defend yourself. You reject the offer
>>>because you want an 'equalizer'. I suspect revenge feelings and mention that unethical.
>
>I reject the idea because the criminal is not going to be armed with a non-lethal weapon. Just ask
>Sean Taylor. He confronted a pistol-wielding criminal with a machete. Now he's dead. Your point
>here is rediculous.
>
>It has absolutly nothing to do with revenge. Equalizer has the word 'Equal' in it. It simply means
>that I want the same odds that the criminal has. If my non-lethal weapon fails to incapacitate
>the intruder, I'm dead. Of course you already know this, your just posting these upsurd notions to
>be antagonistic.
>
>
>>>Then you claim that it's not unethical to defend oneself.
>
>I'm truly amazed that you would make this statement. Is is not only ethical to defend oneself, but
>it is your right and moral obligation to defend you and your family.
>
>Apparanly you and the other gun control nuts are willing to lie down and die at the hands of
>a criminal. Is that ethical? Not in my book.
[...]