D: If they didn't want to be killed by police, they shouldn't have shot at the police in the first place. Simple straightforward thinking.
KL: Wait, no, the police opened fire on them after they started assaulting the man who ran over Marina Delacruz, but not when the guy actually ran her over in the first place, how is that justified?
D: They were gonna kill the guy in the car, they were gonna kill the cops too. So they acted first. Unfortunate, but that's how law works in America.
KL: So you're defending the police here? For extrajudicial murders of striking workers?
D: The case you're making here is largely a strawman. It's such a strawman leftist argument. I haven't taken position on whether on not the police were justified in pulling guns on those protesters. I merely took position about the fact that those protesters were armed and it's standard police protocol to treat people with firearms as hostile.
KL: Sure, but that does not address my point.
PB: You mean like Kyle Rittenhouse was armed? The police seemed just fine with him carrying around weapons.
RN: Oh god, here she goes again with this asinine theory-
D: My criticism of the protesters being armed is still relevant.
PB: Excuse me? Theory? Are you serious, Rob?!
RN: Super serious, sweetie.
D: Can we-
PB: Don't call me sweetie.
RN: Don't tell me what I can and can't say. And don't spread lies while you're at it.
PB: You and I debated for two straight hours where you defended Rittenhouse's right to both open carry and fire on counter-protesters.
HM: What do you mean no, Rob?
RN: No, you're taking my words out of context. I did NOT defend open carry or Rittenhouse's right to fire.
D: Okay, now we're moving into territory where we are both arguing ad nauseam.
PB: Who said I was arguing for either?
RN: Then it was only to argue that you are wrong to say that we don't have a right to carry firearms.
D: And now we're getting away from the point?
PB: You're doing it right now. You're pivoting so bad right now.
HM: Okay, we gotta stop for a second. This is a whole other debate. Shark, you wanted to interject?
SZ: Yeah, I feel like we're off topic here, but Destiny didn't answer the question-
D: I did.
RN: Can I finish my point really quick? I-
SZ: These aren't necessarily rioters, these were protesters.
RN: So can I finish my point?
SZ: They were protesting peacefully for months and there have been at least five other cases of those protesters being run over by cars driven by scab workers-
RN: So how is this any different? Can I finish my point?
SZ: -and police did nothing. Most of those same police were actually on loan by Warrior Met as security for months beforehand.
RN: So how is this any different? So how is this any different?
SZ: And the police did nothing, not a single thing, for all those other times.
D: And this time those protesters killed someone, whats your point here?
SZ: You're being a bit bad faith here, because even in the last major protest, when there was no one dead or injured, and there's been multiple cases of people being run over and killed in these riots, I think the real problem here is not the protesters.
RN: So, the point I was trying to make before was that we can't act like the rioters have excuses. I don't know what you're talking about.
D: The riots that they started.
SZ: There has been protesting for months.
D: I'm not going to deny the riots started-
SZ: They've been SCABs running over and trying to kill people since the middle of last year.
D: I'm not going to deny that the replacement workers running over the protesters went a bit far. But that's not the argument here. You're refusing to engage with the argument.
PB: He's absolutely engaging with your argument! That's the entire basis of your argument!