Comment: The Road to Hell is Paved With GOOD Intentions

(See in situ)

The Road to Hell is Paved With GOOD Intentions

Piers (the debater) is also Piers (the moderator) at all his debates – which invariably gives Piers (the bad actor) the final advantage on all things debate!

Piers simply "Begs the Question" Ad Infinitum to Ad Nauseam – appealing to the "self evidence" of his circular reasoning that "more bullets means more dead INNOCENT people" rather than "more bullets means more dead CRIMINALS" as his opponents' antithetically point out.

Home invasions (by gangs) and bank heists (by groups) are evidently uncommon where Piers is from and seem outside of his reasoning capacities and awareness. The Police are also unarmed where Piers is from (something else to consider.)

His go-to argument fails a basic smell test.

However, Piers, the famed "Americas Got Talent" judge is also an accomplished bullsh*t artist, topping his rhetorical masterpieces with flare – the Appeal to Extremes: "SHOULD THE GUY BEING MUGGED HAVE SHOT THE PEOPLE MUGGING HIM?" Yes, the mere act of brandishing the weapon wouldn't have sufficed in ending the skirmish non violently. In any universe Piers inhabits the criminals continue to rob you when you pull out a gun. Given such extremes one could effectively argue that if social pariah are also Darwin Award recipients, when confronted with killing devices of varying levels of lethality, thn YES, yes we might be better off without them running amok in the gene pool; along with moral conspirators who defend such criminals instead of their victim(s). That is if one were inclined to make such appeals.

When all else fails Piers simply falls back on a minutia of pre-scripted "Gotcha" Questions (his Alex Trebek gameshow safety blanket shtick) to imply his guest is too incompetent to argue authoritatively on the subject simply because they don't have the answers on cue card like Piers does. He does this with predictable Monty Python-esque pathos while stepping on the replies of his guests when they make points he perhaps doesn't want his audience hearing. This clusterfuck while hilarious makes Piers a dishonest and untrustworthy debate moderator and host. Further, this "Poisoning the Well" strategy should win Piers no brownie points among the audience as the ad hominem appeal is considered the bargain bin of rhetorical appeals – effective only to the casually observing drug user in the audience.

Yes, when threatened by Argumentation-Fu, Piers will effectively drag the guest and argument into the rhetorical gutters, where, most of them seem to finish him off...

The frequency of this rinse wash repeat strategy shows Piers is either incredibly naive with well meaning idealisms or a monomaniacal megalomaniac with an incredible disdain for his audience. After all, Americans don't seem to get why the UK is a gun-free utopia with spikes in stabbing-related crimes. Treating the symptoms instead of the disease is obviously the cure where Piers is from.

Other than that this gun control topic is raising more interesting questions than it cares to answer. Primarily on the effectiveness of such an initiative. Can such a program succeed given the geological; sociological; philosophical differences between the US and UK?

Thoughts, opinions, flames? All welcome.