The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

Since no question marks could be found to point out the questions that were asked, I will have to assume that the following were the questions (reworded in question form). 1. Does a biased liberal media exist? 2. Isn't there an equally biased portion of conservative media? 3. Do you want to shift this debate to the argument of media bias? 4. Josh Sugarmann isn't part of the media, right? 5. Isn't right that the because Josh Sugarmann is part of a "separate entity", that you can say the media didn't create the term? If I missed any questions, feel free to expand on them in the next round. Now to answer the questions... 1. Yes! But as my opponent stated, that should be saved for another debate (I would welcome that). However, I was not trying to prove that the media is liberally biased on all topics, just on one topic. Gun control. This is to prove that the media is biased toward gun control, therefore, having a reason to create fear about guns. 2. I wish there was. Again, this should be saved for another debate. However, on the issue of gun control, there is hardly a conservative side to the story. This was proved in the last round with the statistics given. By the way, this wasn't the only study done, others proved the same results. I just used one of the more current ones. I should note about the above two questions posed by my opponent. For the media to be biased toward gun control, doesn't mean that I have to prove that 100% of the media is leaning on that side. Rather that only 51% be on the side of gun control. In fact, this isn't the case. The media is clearly and solidly on the side of gun control as proved by my previous arguments. My opponent is trying to distract you from the truth of these facts by saying that if everyone isn't that way, it must prove that most aren't. He has used this tactic for liberals against guns and the media for gun control. I have never said that the majority means everyone, but rather that the majority is exactly that, 51% or more. 3. No. I wish to remain on topic. However, like I've said, if you would like another debate, bring it on. :-P 4. Like I've said before, just because someone isn't on your payroll, doesn't mean they aren't a part of the media. He is one of many gun control advocates that the media uses (by giving them airtime) to push the agenda of the media company themselves. So no, Josh isn't paid by the news networks, but he is definitely part of them. 5. While the media themselves did not "coin" the term "Assault Weapon", they did in a sense "create" the word. Aside from the answer to question 4 (Josh being a part of the media), they also spread the use of the word and created it's mainstream use. Let's look at the definition of create to explain this further. create - to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to The media "gave rise to" the use of "Assault Weapon" in the main stream media and in the public. This isn't the first case in history of this happening. If I asked people who created the automobile assembly line, most if not all would say "Henry Ford" when in fact it was "Ransom Olds (Oldsmobile)". Don't believe me? Ask a couple people around you. That is because he took an original concept and expanded it so much that people assumed he created it and in a sense, he did. Conclusion: My opponent keeps trying to twist my words to "prove" that my statement and arguments are not true. He says that when I make a statement about MOST, it must me ALL. In every case, I have proved that indeed "MOST" supports my claims. I have given you facts and examples that support my examples. What has my opponent done? Say "prove it". The problem with this argument is that I do prove it. Since he cannot find facts to support the opposite of my claims, he is left with picking apart the wording of my argument and not the argument itself. The fact is that there is a "liberal media" on the issue of "gun control", they did "create" the widespread use of the term "Assault Weapon", and finally, they do have the (hidden or not) agenda to ultimately ban all (or most with a few exceptions) guns.