My Very First In Person Debate

A couple of months ago, I read an article about how semi academic talks were being hosted in bars. Like TED talks, but a lot more casual, and not as pretentious. I was vaguely aware of these happening, but they were picking up steam and so, it merited an article in either the LA Times or NY Times or some other legacy paper. I shared it with a friend, and told him what it really was is just a bunch of socialist millennials who didn’t want to leave the college scene. I’ve been to a meeting like that once years ago, when I was still in community college, and didn’t like the people. Literally socialists, talking Marx. So I looked down my nose and didn’t think much of it. 

The algorithm being what it is, suggested to me on Instagram to follow one of the pages who host these events, called the Saturday Salon. I was mildly interested, and followed really just to confirm what I had already believed, that it was just a socialist club. Again, didn’t think much of it. 

Soon after that, stuff starts happening with ICE and it’s on the news. I like to share memes, especially when it comes to firearms and weaponry, and there was some pretty good stuff coming out. There was a video of a guy trying to take an officer's peppergun, and he gets shot with a pepperball point blank. I shared it, thought it was amusing. To my surprise, the Saturday Salon page responds to my story, and says it was a disproportionate use of force. I was dismissive, and told him he doesn’t know what it’s like to have a gun and have it be taken away from you. He responded by showing me his rifle with a very expensive range finder on top. I was impressed by it. “Sir” I replied, “I apologize. I was unfamiliar with your game.” He laughed and then we had a serious discussion about proportionate use of force. 

As we were winding down the convo, he sort of freaked out and said he didn’t realize he was talking to me on the business page, and he thought he was responding to me with his personal page. He emphasized to me that this was a mistake and that his business is politically neutral. I told him it was no big deal. I decided to throw myself out there, because hey, why not, and told him, if he enjoyed the conversation, I wouldn’t mind giving a talk at his Salon on the morality of gun ownership. He asked me what my experience was, and I told him I worked in the firearms industry (he really did not like that I worked at Turners. He’s had bad experienced with them) and that I’ve given a talk to the Orange County Archdiocese Theology on Tap on the very same subject, with an added theological element. “OH!” he says, “You’re THAT guy! I heard about that.” We exchanged phone numbers. 

He calls me a few days later and tells me he wants to have a panel discussion about firearms some time in April. He asked me if I was interested. I didn’t hesitate to say yes. He said he would talk to the other people in mind and would get back in touch with me. The next day or so, he calls me back and tells me two of the people he contacted weren’t interested, but one really was. And this guy had been a speaker at the salon before, and participated in a debate there on the topic of Universal Basic Income. The guy glazed him up. Said he was an up and coming politician. He had a bright future ahead of him. A real policy wonk. He was articulate and passionate. He had come off a high of doing well in his previous debate, and was looking for another. I was asked if I would like to debate him. 

I hesitated. I asked for some time to think about it. I talked to my wife. She wasn’t sure why I was so hesitant. I guess I didn’t know either. I’ve talked about this subject almost every day for almost four years. It was my career (and it wasn’t a very well paying or glamorous one either). But I was passionate about it and genuinely believed I was doing something good for the culture. I’ve done some reading on it, gave feedback on drafts of an academic paper on firearm ownership (which was the basis of my opening speech), I’ve talked to strangers all the time about it and helped them overcome objections to firearm ownership, so, rationally, I should have no problem with participating in this debate. But still. I was scared. It was a real putting my knowledge to the test, in the spotlight, which I had never done before. That was different. Fortunately, I have a wonderful wife who never doubted me, and the homie and groomsmen to my wedding David said he’d call me a little bitch for the rest of my life if I didn’t pick up the gauntlet. I prayed about it once, felt a peace about it, so, I agreed to do the debate. 

So off to work I went. I did some research on who my opponent was going to be. Miles Patricola. Newport Beach City Council, lost his recent bid, was endorsed by the California Democratic Party, by Moms Demand Action (an anti gun group), and Planned Parenthood. Whether this was virtuous or vicious, I’m not 100% sure, but when I saw the Planned Parenthood endorsement, the residual fear I had left had completely dissipated. He needed to be engaged and defeated. 

I was in a group chat with Miles and the organizer. I believed that getting the question/resolution right would make my job easier. The organizer suggested we debate the Second Amendment. I resisted this because I argued that it was conceivable that someone could believe that the 2A did not allow individuals to have guns, it would be a collective right, but still think we ought to have guns, or that someone could believe that the 2A does give individuals the right to own firearms, but believed that we ought not to have guns. So theoretically, we could have an exegetically focused debate, and not really get to the ideological difference between us. Miles agreed, and said getting bogged down in legal history and precedents would probably bore the audience. So we agreed on debating whether we ought to have guns. Miles clarified for me in that discussion that he took the position that civilians should not own firearms. I personally thought that position was a bit radical, typically the anti gun crowd argues for things like stricter background checks, not total banishment of guns, but whatever. I believed that was a harder position for him to justify, but he seemed confident he could pull it off. Making this the resolution allowed me to focus on the moral argument for firearm ownership, and that is what I was comfortable with. So when it came to the framing of the debate, I got what I wanted. 

Timing. I love my new job. But I leave work at work, and when I am home, I focus on family. I don’t do grading or lesson planning at home. I did that my first year and was burnt out. Though, next year, I might have to find some middle ground. But with family obligations, I had very little time to formally prepare for the debate. I would listen to debates online while I was doing dishes, working out at the gym, putting away laundry, commuting to and from work, etc. Any little time I had for actual reading was mostly for memorizing stats (John Lott is great in this regard). 

I talked with my school's speech and debate coach, and got some pointers from him (“have at least two answers prepared for anticipated questions. Give an easy obvious answer first and then a more nuanced answer second”). My students offered to help me with making flashcards. Such great kids. I did a few practice presentations to my wife (“change the person in your example, just to be more relatable”). I did practice debates on TikTok, and mistakes I made there helped me reconsider my approach on what to focus on. In the limited time I had, I put in some work, and my wife even gave me a day to myself for preparation the week of the debate. Honestly, y’all. Find a woman like her and get married. 

Women. My wife is a great one. Not all women are. I was excited to be speaking, because, for better or for worse, I’ve always thought it to be cool to be on the speaking circuit. Maybe it’s an ego thing. I go back and forth on that sometimes. Something I still reflect on. But I know that it comes with a certain danger, the danger of sexual temptation. Following lots of Christian speakers, I know the damage being with a woman who is not your wife can have on your reputation and the scandal you can bring to the name of Christ. I think of Alex Jurado of Voice of Reason. Ravi Zacharias. Carl Lentz. Sarah Stock was the most recent fall from grace. These people get a large access to crowds, they’re in the spotlight, they get people thrown at them, and they end up having sexual relations and it’s a whole thing. And who am I? I’m a nobody. I’m not part of some agency, or organization’s roster of speakers. No one thinks, “Get me that Adrian guy. That’ll bring in the crowds!” So I’m my groupchat of the boys, many of whom were my groomsmen, or were at least at my wedding, and I was like, “Fellas, seeing how we all discussed Voice of Treason the way we did, should I bring my wife with me?” To which the immediate and resounding answer was “Yes, why are you asking such a stupid question? Don’t risk it, you moron.” So okay. I explained to my wife, look, I’m not this celebrity or anything, but, it’s going to be at a bar, I will have the spotlight for a bit, I want you to be there, just in case. Of course, she did not hesitate. 

Dress. How was I to dress? The flyer said dress chic. I didn’t know what that meant (my wife did), but I figured, as speaker, I should be exempt and be able to dress however I like. If the audience is a bunch of socialists like I expect, I’m going to really need to win them over. And does my dress influence that? Maybe, even if just a tiny bit. Dress does matter. I remember Jimmy Akin had a debate with James White, and he wore all white with a cowboy hat. Okay. Kinda eccentric, ngl. I did read comments along the lines of “Who is this guy to wear a stupid cowboy hat in a debate?” Which, to Akin’s credit, eventually turned into, “How embarrassing that James White lost to a guy in a stupid cowboy hat.” haha. So, perception matters. How do I want to be perceived? In a conversation about guns. To people who are antigun. Hm. I considered my all black outfit with a bolo tie. Looks slick. Looks cool. Kinda edgy. Like a chubby John Wick. Decided against that, because it’s not best to dress edgy when trying to persuade people on the topic of safety. I might as well have dressed up as the grim reaper if I did that. So, I opted for my professorial look with neutral light brown colors. Warmer color, with navy blue knit tie and blue suede shoes, with residual chalk from my classroom chalkboard. Went for a harmless disarming teacher look. 

Wife and I drop Topher off with my mom, and we head over to the salon. My wife wanted to play music (the modern Christian kind. As holy as she is, that’s just one aspect of her faith I’m not too enthusiastic about) but I requested silence so I could do last minute practice in my head. I mutter, make hand gestures, repeat certain numbers I think might come up. Wife is supportive, holds my hand. About halfway there, I tell her I’m done and don’t want to prep anymore, what’s done is done, and we just talk about the scenery on the rest of the drive over. We arrive, and the salon is part of a storefront, but the windows are blacked out. You can’t see inside. It’s supposed to be a speakeasy, even though there are facetious signs outside that say it’s not a speakeasy. We walk in, and it's a whole vibe. The lights are dimmed, the walls are painted blood red. Chandeliers with electronic candles flicker. There’s art on the wall. Photographs of the owner, who has traveled to over a hundred countries, are all over the walls as well. There are foldable chairs in the front, and couches towards the back. There’s a man sitting at the piano in the corner, which according to the flyer was stolen from Charlie Sheen. Towards the back of the room are two directors chairs with bright lights. That’s where it's going down. 

We’re a bit early, but there’s already quite a few people there. My wife and I hit it off really well with one lady Roxanne, who was there waiting for a coworker who invited her out. The room quickly filled up, and it became evident who these type of people were. Most of the women were plastic. Lip fillers, botox. Wearing dresses that highlight their fake breasts and fake personalities, leaving nothing to the imagination. My wife leaned over to me, “Don’t look, but dear Lord, that lady has a dress that is just letting it all hang out.” A few moments later, I saw who she was talking about. “Oh my gawsh! What the heck. And she’s sitting in the front row. Ok, if she asks a question, I’m just going to be locking eyes with you.” The men were also pretty cookie cutter. Finance bro types. If they weren’t financial advisors they were real estate agents. Open collar button up. That sort of look. 

I start chatting up different people, to get a feel of who leaned which way on the issue of firearms. A bit of recon work. My wife stayed with her new friend Roxanne. One said that although they were liberal, they were in favor of guns because “that’s the only way we're going to start the revolution.” Right. But that indicated to me that my talking point about ICE was probably going to be received well. Then an odd thing happened. Girl walks up to me. “Oh wow, is that a cashmere sweater?” She rubs my arm. 

“Uhh. I don’t know. I got it at a thrift store though! Five bucks!” Playing the poor card deterred her. But for a moment, I did think to myself, hey I’m cute! Haha. I talked to another guy, and he asked me what my strategy was going to be. I said, “Well, ya know, I think in debates, it's futile to try to convince the other guy, so I’m going to try to read the audience as best I can and try to convince them.” He laughed. Hard. I thought that was curious. I learned why later. Then, an odd thing happened. One girl in that circle said, “I’m personally against guns, but I get why someone would want it. I just couldn’t live with myself if I had to kill someone else. But, if I had a man who owned a gun, and he had it for my protection, I would feel incredibly safe with him.” 

“Ah, yeah, I get that. I don’t think I would press that you are forced to have a gun. Just don’t press onto others that we can’t have it.” 

“What would you like to press on me?” She locks eyes with me as she drinks from her wine bottle. Not her wine glass. The entire bottle. 

“Oh…um. You know, I would say just keep your purse pressed against you tight. My wife, right over there, she just bought her first gun. It’s called the Sig Rose. It’s got these really cute rose gold accents. And we just bought a small little gun bag for it, so that when she’s out on a run with our two year old son, she is able to defend herself and our son, ya know. She’s not quite comfortable with the gun on her waistband, pressing against her skin. If that’s what you meant.” 

“That’s such a pretty gun.” Two, in the span of like ten minutes. Probably a personal best for female attention. I walk around, and meet the owner for the first time face to face. He’s wearing this oversized fur jacket. He hugs me and locks me in. He’s tall, maybe 6’ 4”, and didn’t expect him to shove my face into his fur. It’s in my mouth. This amuses my wife. He pulls her in, and now I’m sandwiched between the two. Tells her how he’s looking forward to the debate, and how it was a pleasure to meet her, completely suffocating me at the same time. I’m then introduced to my opponent. Also taller than me, and very warm personality. Gentle smile. Said he was looking forward to our exchange, and that he’s done debates here before, and reassured me that there would be no personal attacks. As we parted ways, an odd thing happened. A woman walks up to me and asks, “So what’s with the Mr. Rogers get up?” 

“Haha, you know, that’s exactly the look I was going for. So thank you.” 

“Yeah, looking like a goody two shoes over here.” 

“Well, that’s kinda the point. I wanted to go for a disarming sort of look. Put people at ease. Didn’t want people to look at me, and be put on edge in a conversation about guns, ya know?” 

“Wow, you’re so innocent. I just want to corrupt you so bad.” 

“Uh huh. Well,” I say as I scratch my eyebrow to show her my wedding ring, “you can certainly try, I suppose.” I had nothing clever to say to this one. I was officially in danger. She proceeded to tell me she was a madam of sorts, who runs some kind of erotic dancing business. Not a conversation I wanted to be part of. “Hey, you know, I just learned not too long ago, that when strippers do the spin on the pole, it's not the dancers who are spinning, but it's the pole that spins. Blew my mind.” I make a gunshot motion to the head. “Like, how fake can you get? Like, what’s even real or authentic about that type of industry, ya know?” I was a bit rude about it, but I had to be. She got the sense that I was not interested, and she returned to her friends. I immediately returned to my wife. “You cannot leave my side. I’m being flirted with.” 

“I’ve already been flirted with too. I just told the guy that the main speaker is my husband and he immediately changed the subject.” 

“Okay, we’re not leaving each other then.” 

We met a reporter for the LA Times. Shorter guy. One of the more normal looking guys. Writes for the sports section. We introduce each other, and I tell him I’m a teacher. “In fact, you may have heard about us. We were in the news recently because our school church was desecrated. Someone broke in, destroyed the statues, took the tabernacle and tossed it to the ground in another room. They tried to break in and steal the hosts, and that’s a big deal for us Catholics. We believe that’s literally God, creator of the universe in there, so it’s a civil rights violation really.” 

“Huh. I’ve not heard about this. That’s interesting. I’m Jewish, and I know if something like that happened to a synagogue, it’d be all over the news.” 

“Isn’t that the truth?! Yeah, why is that, that you don’t hear about it in the news when Christians get desecrated, but if it was for a synagogue or even a mosque, everyone would know about that. Interesting, isn’t it?” 

“Have they caught whoever did it?” 

“No, not yet, but we’ve made a lot of the right enemies. For example, literally across the street from us, less than a block from the school, is a Planned Parenthood. You can see their logo very clearly from the second story of our school, and so we send people out there and pray. We do processions around there as well, so our presence is known.”

“What do you do in front of Planned Parenthood exactly? Like, you’re out there with signs?”

“Oh, no. We’re praying out there, and we will have brochures for people walking in, if they want it. Let the women know they have genuine choices, and there is help for them if they want it.”

“But you let people in? How close do you get?”

“We’re on the sidewalk, which is legal. We don’t block the entry way, that’s a violation of the FACE act.”

“I suppose that doesn’t really do anything then” he says apprehensively. 

“Actually, it does. Merely being out there praying can decrease the number of people showing up by half. People driving up will be deincentivized just by our presence. So, thoughts and prayers do seem to work.” I could tell he was getting slightly uncomfortable, and I changed the subject. But it was valuable information for me because I did consider bringing up abortion in one of my talking points. This told me it probably wouldn’t land well in this crowd. 

The lights flipped on and off and it was the host telling everyone the show was about to get on the road. There were two speakers slated before me. The first speaker gave a talk on nations with partially sovereignty, which was not that interesting to me, but the audience seemed to love it. Then another guy went up talking about how nations are defined and how they gain recognition. That was a bit more interesting to me. He mentioned how the Kurds fought hard for recognition, but despite doing everything by the book, they never received it, but ISIS does get recognition, mainly because they used guns. A point I kept in mind. Both of these speakers, by the way, were college professors, and were very much credentialed. This was their area of expertise, and had even written books on it. 

Enough of the opening acts. It was time to shine. Moderator goes up. Pretty gal. Short skirt. Was involved, I think, with the local Young Republicans chapter. She introduced me, and the first thing in the list of bullet points I gave her was that I was married, and that my wife is in the audience. Odd reaction of “Ohhh” from the crowd. Upon reflection, I think we were the only married couple there. And she told them I was a dad, and then my more relevant credentials. Her intro to Miles, my opponent, was a lot shorter, but a lot of people there seemed to know him anyway. She added, “And he’s also a cat dad.” The crowd laughed. 

So up I went. I won’t say much, because the video will be available soon, hopefully by next week, so I won’t go blow by blow, but here was the jist of my argument. We have the right to life. The right to life carries with it a corresponding right to preserve that right. So for example, if it is necessary for me to eat and drink in order to live, then I also have a right to eat and drink. If my right to eat and drink is denied, if somehow you were to own all the food and drink in the world, and you denied me any, you are denying me my right to life. The denial of the consequent is a denial of the antecedent. So, the right to life entails the right to the means to preserve that right. Now, as it so happens, because crime is real, I need to use force to preserve my life. I can my hands, my arms, my fists, my legs, etc, in order to preserve my life. But usually if someone is trying to make me a victim, there is a disparity of force. So I need a tool to erase that disparity. This is just a long way of saying I have the right to bear arms. So, the right to life entails the right to the means to preserve that life, which entails the right to bear arms. Now there is a strong presumption for that took to be a firearm, for three reasons. First, it is quick, usually a draw from the waistband is all it takes. It is easy, usually a three and a half pound trigger pull is all it takes. And it is discriminatory, meaning, I can point it at my aggressor and stop that specific threat. This would not be true of things like grenades which are non discriminatory. So, my right to life entails the right to the means of preserving life, which means I can have a firearm and the denial of a firearm is tantamount to denying my right to life. This is a moral argument. And I want us to focus on the moral argument. I use this argument because of the following. Usually when I observe arguments between pro and anti gunners, it goes something like this. Guns are good because they reduce crime and harm. Or guns are bad because they increase gun deaths. And back and forth they go, squabbling about this or that study. Now, we don’t have time to print out 70 pages worth of studies. Maybe if you were in my classroom I would assign it for homework, but not here. But more to the point, the empirical data is irrelevant. Why is that? Because when we say that firearms are grounded in the right to life, we are focusing on rights, and rights function as moral trump cards that cannot be defeated by a simple cost-benefit analysis. So, for example, a doctor cannot override your right to life just because by doing so he may harvest your organs and save the lives of five other people. This is simple cost-benefit analysis. Killing you is one life lost. Losing that life saves five other lives. So there’s a benefit of four lives saved total. But obviously taking your life in this scenario would be wrong. This wouldn’t be a sufficient reason to override your right to life. So, what I could do, theoretically, is grant whatever study Miles might refer to, just for the sake of argument, that getting rid of guns saves more lives, and that wouldn’t be good enough because it would be a violation of the right to life. We have to focus on morality. 

I received a good round of applause, but not overwhelming for sure. Roughly the 50/50 support that I had tested the water for. I sat back down. I was surprised when Miles turned to me and said he would not be giving opening remarks. In our texts he said he would, even though he said they would be short. But to completely cede over opening remarks really surprised me. “If you don’t mind,” he said, “I would just like to try to convince you, and examine your argument.” A lot went through my mind at that moment. This seemed to be a strategic decision. I figured that by asking me the questions, he was keeping me in the hot seat. I was under pressure, and with my opening remarks given, I could only do worse. I could only be less convincing. And if he is able to make me look like a fool, then what he might be hoping for is that since he took no risk by putting his position out there, and thus have nothing for me to cross examine, then he would look right by default. It looked like he was taking a low risk approach. So what am I to do? I didn’t like that this was the position I was put in, but what could I say, “No, I insist you give an opening speech?” That seems weird. So I consented, but knew that I would have to immediately end my answers with a question for him, so that I could place the burden back on him instead of just myself. He needed to risk his neck too, and I needed to think about how to draw that out. 

His first question was about the number of gun deaths. He said he appreciated that we not focus on the empirical questions, and asked if I thought that the reduction of guns would lower the number of gun deaths. I replied that this was an empirical question, and thus doesn’t really strike at my argument. I myself thought that this was an odd question given that he just agreed we not focus on the empirical data and then immediately give me a question about empirical data. Perhaps he was asking about my prediction about cause and effect, but that’s still an empirical adjacent question and not really an ethical/philosophical one. He nodded and saw the point immediately. “But you would say it's high, would you not”, he asked. “Yes”, I replied, “and it’s about 40,000 right?” I made it a point to cite the numbers to show that I was familiar with the data and give myself an air of credibility. “Yes,” he says, “but that can be unclear with suicide numbers”. I added, “Yes, suicides account for about 2/3rd of all gun deaths.” Again, this was to establish my familiarity and thus my competency. Right off the bat, I feel like I’m doing well. 

I began to make distinctions between gun deaths and gun murders, between justified versus unjustified gun usage. I made distinctions between guns being fired and mere brandishing in response to violent crimes, and how this may not be accurately recorded in studies. I asked him if he knew if the studies to which he referred accounted for those distinctions, and he said he did not. I give him points for intellectual honesty there. So, I said, let’s just step away from the empirical data and focus on my moral argument for guns. It seems like his approach for the night was to just hammer me with the data, and I think I did well shaking those off and raising skepticism of them by asking questions and making him do some of the work as well. I suspect that he ceded his opening statement because I had preempted his strategy with my point about rights having prima facie weight over empirical considerations. 

There came a point where I asked him if he was a pacifist. He said no. So you’re in favor of at least some people having guns? Yes. Which people are those? The government. I understand you to be a man of, broadly speaking, the left side of the political aisle. That’s right. Are you happy with how Trump is running the government? I am not. Are you happy with the way he has unleashed ICE, in light of Rene Good and Alex Pretti? I am not. But you want only them to have guns? Yes, but- The audience groans. Their groaning gave him pause. That landed well for me. He talked about training and vetting, but it fell on deaf ears I think. 

The discussion moved to child deaths. Of all the topics he could have brought up, I suspected that this would be his strongest because it is rhetorically powerful. Responding with facts and figures seems cold and uncaring. So I prepared especially for this. This was my personal highlight of the debate. Now, know that during our entire discussion so far, we were civil. We did not interrupt, and we did not shout, we did not talk over one another. We waited patiently for one another. He was a real gentleman. This is the only time I broke this rule. He started his point about dead children with the oft cited statistic that gun deaths are the number one cause of deaths in children. He was going to continue, but I had to emphatically interrupt “Nope. Not true. Factually incorrect!” I couldn’t let him pick up steam with the dead kids point and it was honestly a gift that he started with this particular statistic because it allowed me to object forcefully. “Okay then” as he looks from the audience over to me, “What is the number one cause of deaths?” 

“Congenital defects.” 

“Okay. We must be reading different data.” 

“No we’re not actually. So, the study that he’s talking about, that says guns are the number one cause of death of children, it measures children from the ages of 1 to 19. So, first, the 19 year olds, they shouldn’t be included in that study, and that skews the data more towards violence. Second, it doesn’t account for children from birth to 12 months. But why? Once you plug those numbers in, you see that congenital defects are the number one killer of children, and it’s not even close. It’s like 10 to 1.” 

“Hm. Okay, what’s the second highest then?” 

“Drowning” without skipping a beat. 

“Okay,” I was hoping he was going to ask for the third, because then it’s car accidents, and then it’s guns, “even if I’m wrong about that, you’d surely agree one is too many?” 

“Oh, absolutely.” In my preparation, I had considered raising the point that the study in question makes the assumption that the unborn are not children worth recording, but if you do think the unborn are innocent human beings, then abortion is the number one killer of children, by magnitudes. But, because of my discussion about Planned Parenthood earlier with the LA Times reporter, and him not seeming enthused about it, I decided not to bring it up. Besides, by this point in the debate, I was dominating, and I knew it, and thought it better not to risk losing any points I had made with the audience. 

The moderator started taking questions from the audience. It was interesting to observe that all except one question was for Miles. I think this was the real downside to not giving an opening speech. People got a clear systematic view of my position, but they had sort of guess and piece together his position, so naturally people are going to have questions about his view, thus he gets most of the questions. And they were pretty hard, not going to lie. I certainly did not envy him. Now, some of the questions were just rants. I did not appreciate those, even if they were broadly in support of my position. And I actually ended up feeling really bad for him and tried to make his position stronger. So there was one question asked to him concerning America’s history and the revolutionary war, and how the militia, which were just regular farmers, had guns. And Miles brought up the predictable “You can’t outgun the government who have planes and drones”. I supported him and said that while I love movies like The Patriot, and Americans do romanticize the militia, historically, they’re tactical failures. They tend to engage in suicide missions, and really their benefit is that they provide intel, through their losses, to the organized fighting force. I said even when you look at our recent fighting in Iraq, with near peer fighting, for every American soldier killed, insurgents with AK’s lost about 20 men. American near peer fighting was so dominant, that insurgents stopped engaging us directly and began relying on IEDs. So while it’s cool to show off my guns on instagram, I understand that my AR15 is not enough. And I said this as an olive branch to him, because dude could not catch a break. 

The debate was over, and I didn’t break a sweat. Immediately people came up to me and said it was no contest. The gentleman who asked me what my strategy was going to be for the night, and laughed when I answered him that I was going to try to convince the audience not my opponent, explained to me after the debate was over, that the reason he laughed was because he had asked my opponent the exact same question before he had asked me, and gave the exact opposite answer, that his goal was to try to convince me and not the audience, because if he could do that, he could get the entire audience. I laughed and said I hoped he was entertained, and he certainly was. No more women came up to me. 

One of the gentlemen from the audience told me that he really appreciated my moral approach. He said, “Finally, someone who gets it!” He then asked me what school I taught at. I said a private school in Long Beach. His eyes widened. “Holy Innocents?!” Turns out, he’s Catholic and loves the TLM and serves at the TLM as well! He goes to St. Michaels Abbey often and regularly attends St. John the Baptist (for those of you not from the area, these places, along with Holy Innocents, say the TLM and is usually said by the Norbertines) . So we got excited to meet each other, and discussed natural law and St. Thomas Aquinas, and he really appreciated my approach and said he was so happy there was a knowledgeable Catholic finally talking about guns. We exchanged social media, but he did say he would add me after Lent, since that’s what he gave up. 

I talked to the host. He said he walked around and asked the audience who they think won and it was a clear no contest, even among those who wanted me to lose. It was getting late, about 11pm at this time, and my wife and I are starving because we skipped dinner to be here. We google the nearest McDonalds. It was a treat. I ordered a double quarter pounder with Sprite. McDonalds sprite man, it just hits different. I looked at my burger before I took my first bite and said, “I deserve this.” 

We get home, and Topher is spending the night with his grandma. I take out of my pocket some medals blessed by Pope Leo, and a third class relic of St. Carlo Acuitis. A first class relic visited my school the day before, and I was able to press a medal of his against a piece of his heart. Lori and I go straight to bed and knock out. I wake up the next morning, and the first thing my wife says, “Good morning my debate champion.” That was hotter than anything these other women could have said. We got ready for church, I gave thanks to God, who has graced me beyond words, and I have written a lot of words.

And that’s that.