The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
xxxallyssarulezxxx
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,102 times Debate No: 20993
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (5)

 

ConservativePolitico

Con

Resolved: all weapons on Earth should be destroyed.

The burden of proof is shared:

Pro arguing that they should be destroyed must prove their point.

Con arguing that they should remain intact must prove their point.

all - meaning everything in the catagory of a weapon

weapon- anything designed to kill or cause harm

First round is for acceptance only.

Go!

xxxallyssarulezxxx

Pro

Well the burden of proof should technically be on me, but okay. In that case, the rules and definitions (specifically the latter) are excellent and I submit to them. I’ll see if I can keep up with you ;)

Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Con

Here we go. You took the burden of proof so I'm going to lay out a simple starting argument. I'll focus most of my attention on refuting your main points.

Order

Weapons keep order plain and simple. Cops carry guns in order to give off the presence of authority and control which then breeds order. Many people will not draw weapons on cops because they are liable to get shot. During the cold war weapons kept us out of war with the USSR. The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) made it so that neither side opened fire on the other because both sides feared retaliation. Without weapons governments couldn't stop mass uprisings such as riots effectively. Police would have no way to stop criminals from running from them every single time. Weapons do keep order.

Human Nature

Weapons will not eliminate violent behavior, it will only cause people to seek other tools to carry out their violence. Just because we eliminate weapons doesn't mean that it will eliminate violent behavior. People will just seek out makeshift weapons to carry out their desires. Sharpened broom sticks, kitchen knives, rocks and tools will become commonplace at murder scenes instead of a smoking bullet. People will just make their own weapons making it much harder to regulate and control who gets what. Weapons are just a tool and people will find a way to function without them in the same violent ways. Beatings would increase along with murder by wrench.

- It is better to have an industry that is controlled by the government than a underground homemade weapons market

- Weapons help to keep order

- Violent behavior won't be changed, just the way it is preformed

On to you since you technically have the BOP.
xxxallyssarulezxxx

Pro

I'll accept the BOP and wish myself good luck because I'll need it against you :)

I submit to you the core of all my following arguments: having no weapons is preferable to having weapons. Ultimately, there are alternate methods to dealing with the problems that weapons solve.

The potential end

With nuclear weapons alone, we have the capacity to destroy planet Earth [1]. In the wrong hands (e.g. terrorists, dodgy politicians), the end of life on Earth could come prematurely. Furthermore, entrusting such dangerous weapons in anyone's hands is a risk; would you trust someone you have never met with your life? The lingering effects of a nuclear bomb are quite severe, ranging from bodily wounds to widespread contamination of the area [2]. Nuclear weapons, in particular, are awfully devastating.

An arms reduction, similar to that of the Cold War between the U.S and the USSR, could eliminate the need to have global weapons to counteract international threat. Despite disliking each other thoroughly, arms reduction was agreed to by both sides (in the end of the Cold War). This has lead to further arms reductions [4], and therefore, it was/is successful.

Police brutality

While a rarity, police brutality still exists [3]. Simply put, empowering certain people with weapons is a horrendous idea because they have the tendency to be irresponsible or irrational, but the overwhelming problem is that these certain people are not always easy to identify. Police can only be judged by what they've done; it is hard to determine if someone is irresponsible or irrational with an interview (or however they recruit police). So, how do you know which people could be empowered in such an enforcing way?

Under the title of "Order", you argue that weapons are essential because they are what keep people from committing crimes – people are not likely to commit a crime knowing they're risking their life in the process. Rather than work on deterrence, would it not be preferable to work on an altogether elimination of the tendency to commit crime? Why not teach children from an early age to detest crimes? Moreover, ingrain within them a resentment of any act of crime and encourage them to scorn those who commit the crimes. With all the propaganda techniques employed within society now-a-days (Patriotism, for example), surely a fervent resentment of crime could be constructed within people, thus eventually making the ‘police officer' a redundant necessity. This argument also addresses your "Human Nature" points in that people will have no desire to commit violent acts with their improvised weapons.
"- It is better to have an industry that is controlled by the government than a underground homemade weapons market" Yes, but it is better to have no threat of violence whatsoever.
"- Weapons help to keep order" They do, but there are more efficient methods.
"- Violent behavior won't be changed, just the way it is preformed" Violent behaviour may be eradicated if the right propaganda and rhetoric is employed.

All Governments could have the power over their people to convincingly persuade their people that violence is awful (Patriotism is a good example, although yes, not everyone submits to it. Non-violence encouragement would work better because there is a moral element to it and most people already agree that it is morally correct).

[1] http://io9.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://theinternettoday.net...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Con

The Potential End

While nuclear weapons are quite destructive and frightening the resolution reads that ALL weapons on Earth should be destroyed. We could eliminate nuclear weapons without getting rid of such things as hand guns, police batons and other such weapons as that.

This does not say why we should eliminate all types of weapons from bows to hunting rifles to warplanes. We could eliminate weapons of mass destruction but still need basic weapons in order to perform tasks like hunt and keep order in the streets.

Also I would like to point up that the nuclear build up is what prevented the Cold War from tuning into a Hot War. Through a policy and situation known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) [1] we kept each other at bay through threat of destruction. It is arguable that without nuclear weapons we would have gone to war with the USSR.

While you can argue for the destruction of WMDs it does not go to show why ALL weapons need to be eliminated.

Police Brutality

Taking away handguns from the police will not stop police brutality, nor will it stop criminals from acting irrationally. In fact removing hand weapons would give people to act more irrationally by giving them hope of escape and fighting back etc. Most police brutality cases are done through physical beatings and not with a gun but with hands and feet. Taking weapons away doesn't solve this problem.

Now to address your "teaching children" idea:

1) If teaching children to detest crime was so effective why do we still have crime?
2) Children are taught to detest and fear crime through the prison system and (hopefully) good parenting
3) Most crimes stem from poverty [2] or broken family units, you can't teach these things away
4) We do scorn criminals by jailing them

There is no way to prevent people from committing violent acts, if there was then we would have found it by now and implemented it. Crime is detested by the government and the people hence the use of police and the prison system.
Violence is "awful" and we are taught this in school (no bullying), in the workplace (no harassment or battery) and in the streets (cops).

People however choose to ignore this in a world full of weapons so why would they listen in a world without them?

Weapons are Tools

Weapons are tools and are used by many as vital parts of life and society. Hunting knives, rifles, bows and arrows, and TNT are all things that were designed or are used to kill and yet benefit society. How would people hunt without weapons? Hunting is still a source of food for parts of the Third World. Where would man be if we couldn't hunt? Weapons are also used for sport such as in bow shooting. They are also used in self defense against animals and crazy people and criminals.

The weapon is what put man above the rest of the animals in the world, you can't just take it away from him. Man invented weapons as a tool, they are a strong part of our history and our personality.

Weapons cannot be destroyed entirely.

[1] http://www.nuclearfiles.org...
[2] http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...
xxxallyssarulezxxx

Pro

The Potential End

“Also I would like to point up that the nuclear build up is what prevented the Cold War from tuning into a Hot War. Through a policy and situation known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) [1] we kept each other at bay through threat of destruction. It is arguable that without nuclear weapons we would have gone to war with the USSR.”

This is to ignore the imminent threat nuclear weapons posed in the sense that widespread devastation will ensue if either side felt threatened. The Berlin Standoff in 1961 [1] is a great example of how close either side was to ordering fire on the enemy. The Standoff demonstrates that the weapons were not only used as a deterrent (for M.A.D), but they were armed and ready to blow each other to bits.

Another example [2] shows how desperate the U.S was to rid the USSR of nuclear weapons. Would they be so desperate to remove the nuclear arms facility if they thought the USSR was creating weapons as a deterrent?

Police Brutality

“Taking away handguns from the police will not stop police brutality”

I never argued this, rather, I argued that if we continue to have police then there will be brutality. To counteract this, by ingraining a true resentment of crime within people, there would be no requirement for police, hence no potential for police brutality.

You have not addressed the aspect of my argument which argues that there will be rouge police officers or police officers incapable of enforcing the law legally (i.e. beating someone to death because he/she looked at the officer in a crude way). This exposes the insufficiency of the current legal system: people enforcing the law can (potentially, as some bad officers are caught) get away with illegal activity. To conclude on this point, my proposal of ‘ridding the world of a violent mentality’ is more efficient than employing police officers.

RE: Now to address your "teaching children" idea:

“1) If teaching children to detest crime was so effective why do we still have crime?”

They have not done so to the extent I proposed. I proposed an extent similar to that of patriotism which has people celebrating the illegal death (breaking international law) of a “terrorist” [3]. Many, many citizens of the U.S.A celebrated the death of another man, an event of which is not replicated ever at a court conviction.

“2) Children are taught to detest and fear crime through the prison system and (hopefully) good parenting”
Again, not to the extent I proposed.

“3) Most crimes stem from poverty [2] or broken family units, you can't teach these things away”

Perhaps, but the government could teach its people how to legally react to these situations. The government could offer classes or support on how to avoid or escape poverty. Alternatively, an exaggerated (compared to today’s) welfare system could be implemented in order to eliminate poverty. There are ways around this problem.

“4) We do scorn criminals by jailing them”
Not to the extent I proposed.

“There is no way to prevent people from committing violent acts, if there was then we would have found it by now and implemented it.”

How is it an absolute that “if there was [a solution] then we would have found it by now”? Inventions are made every day, new theories designed incessantly too. Please explain how you reached this conclusion.

I reiterate: encourage people to detest crime in a fervent way, similar to that of patriotism, rather than the comparatively apathetic response currently ingrained within us (i.e. there is nothing worse than committing a crime).

Weapons are Tools

“How would people hunt without weapons? Hunting is still a source of food for parts of the Third World”.

Synthetic nutrients are becoming on-par with real foods, and are expected to surpass real foods within the near future [4]. Vitamin tablets, for example, could be exported to these Third World countries. I’ll ignore the animal morality component of hunting as that in itself is another debate.

“Where would man be if we couldn't hunt?” This is not a debate about ‘what happened in the past?’; it is an debate about ‘what are we going to do now?’

“Weapons are also used for sport such as in bow shooting.”

Bow shooting is not a necessity. Playing this sport, in my propounded, new world structure, would put everyone’s life at risk.

“The weapon is what put man above the rest of the animals in the world, you can't just take it away from him. Man invented weapons as a tool, they are a strong part of our history and our personality.”

So we should continue using weapons because we always have? This is simply not practical as it serves no purpose other than tradition. If we want to remind ourselves of our primitive ways, a museum would suffice.

New argument: The creation of weapons costs large amounts of resources

For this argument, I have no better example than the American military budget. In 2011, the American military budget exceeded $1.5 Billion [5]. In comparison to my proposed solution, this is an enormous waste of money and human resources (military officials). Furthermore, this does not include other expenditure, such as the funding of the counter-terrorism agency (FBI). These wastes can be avoided.

“Other weapons”

Weapons, by your definition, are designed to cause harm. In my proposed solution(s), there is no need for causing harm to each other. You criticized me for not addressing other weapons besides nuclear weapons: “While nuclear weapons are quite destructive and frightening the resolution reads that ALL weapons on Earth should be destroyed”. I only wanted to make a case against nuclear weapons as, with a single statement, I cannot refute the need for every weapon. I need to specifically refer to and dismiss each weapon one at a time. Therefore, I was not avoiding the resolution, I was merely remaining pragmatic. Furthermore, in my proposed governmental structure, there will be no need for (any) weapons in the long term (international arms reduction will take time).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://abcnews.go.com...
[4] http://store.druckerlabs.com...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativePolitico

Con

The Potential End

It doesn't matter how close they came to "blow[ing] each other to bits", the facts are that they DIDN'T blow each other to bits. M.A.D. worked.

This is a case where weapons brought about peace. The same situation can be found across countless police stand offs and criminal deterrants.

The weapons prevented a war plain and simple.

Police Brutality

Your argument is straying from the original resolution now. We are arguing for the destruction of weapons not the creation of some new society.

I already pointed out that we do have a fear and disgust for crime instilled in us from a young age and enforced by our legal system. Weapons are key to law enforcement because without the threat of some sort of retribution in the field criminals would never, ever surrender. Also, this debate is not about our legal system it is about the existence of weapons.

No matter how hard you try you won't eliminate crime. If it were doable it would have been done by now.

Teaching Children

Are you supporting a system of vigilante justice in which criminals are cheered when killed in the streets? That is absurd. Also how do we have this system implemented if there are no weapons to enforce it? What will people be cheering for then?

What you are proposing is almost the exact same thing US President LBJ proposed in his Great Society and War on Poverty and it did not work. Poverty is not such an easy beast to slay.

Your argument: create a system in which crime will not exist and therefore the need for weapons disappears.

However, we are talking about today's world and the situation in reality. In our current situation, if we made all weapons disappear today, it would not work. The debate is not about creating a utopian system in which weapons serve no purpose but whether or not we should destroy all weapons TODAY HERE AND NOW. And the answer to that is no.

Weapons are Tools


- Are you suggesting the First World buy tablets to sustain the entire Third World? This isn't viable in today's day and age. This doesn't happen. The Third World needs weapons to hunt and protect themselves from criminals and dangers. You can't just deprive them of their tools in pursuit of a silly First World utopian dream.

- Man still hunts as sport and for food in some backwater areas and Third World countries. Hunting is not a dead art.

- Once again you talk about a new society that does not pertain to this debate. You can't just eliminate a tradition and a sport because you feel like it would help your new society. People would fashion their own makeshift weapons and continue without your support.

- Tradition is a big part of humanity. You can't just destroy culture for the sake of a utopia, that is just inhuman. Weapons are still tools today, people still hunt and in places like the Australian Outbackand the US Deep South guns are a treasured heritage.

Resources

In the US arms manufacturing and sales is one of the biggest industries we have. We are the world's largest weapons exporter and total revenue has totaled over 5 billion a year for the past ten years. [1] So while the military incurs costs the weapons industry makes some of it up through sales. And according to your number, overtakes "military spending" by quite a bit.

Other Weapons

Unfortunately your solution isn't realistic. Your society cannot exist outside of the pages of Orwell's 1984.

The reality is our world is a dangerous place, people have violent and criminal intent and weapons are needed. Your solution is a complete fantasy, story telling at its finest.

In today's world, you cannot simply eliminate weapons!

Maybe in your fantasy but not in reality.

Conclusion

In today's world:

- weapons are tools

- weapons deter crime and violence in situations

- weapons are a big industry for the United States and many parts of the world

- hunting and personal defense are not outdated practices and are still needed today

- in the absence of official weapons a homemade underground weapons market would sprout and cause more harm than the official weapons business

- you can't destroy poverty and you can't eliminate crime or violent nature

Thank you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
xxxallyssarulezxxx

Pro

The Potential End

“It doesn't matter how close they came to "blow[ing] each other to bits", the facts are that they DIDN'T blow each other to bits. M.A.D. worked”.

Yes, M.A.D worked and “prevented a war plain and simple”, but my point is that it is an inefficient method of maintaining world peace. To have Nuclear weapons that can potentially annihilate a vast proportion of the planet is inefficient when compared to having no nuclear weapons what-so-ever that will not pose said threat. There is no risk if there are no weapons (in the entire world), whilst there is still a (albeit slight) risk in having weapons. What would have happened if a nuclear technician accidently set off a nuclear weapon in the Cold War? While there is relatively low risk in governments creating and maintaining nuclear arms, there is still risk.

Police Brutality

“Your argument is straying from the original resolution now. We are arguing for the destruction of weapons not the creation of some new society”. Through the creation of a new society we can destroy all weapons in the world. It is because we can create a new society that all weapons should be destroyed.

“I already pointed out that we do have a fear and disgust for crime instilled in us from a young age and enforced by our legal system.” Yes, but again, not to the level of fervency which would provoke different mindsets of our young.

“Weapons are key to law enforcement because without the threat of some sort of retribution in the field criminals would never, ever surrender.” If we slowly, but surely decrease the necessity and/or temptation to commit crime, there will eventually be no need for the police.

“Also, this debate is not about our legal system it is about the existence of weapons.” The legal system is one of the reasons why weapons are required (currently). As you have specified, the police (currently) require weapons to enforce the law.

“No matter how hard you try you won't eliminate crime. If it were doable it would have been done by now.”

This claim (in the second sentence, I left the first in the quote for context) is made under the presumption that all methods to eliminate crime have been attempted. I asked my opponent to explain the process involved reaching this conclusion, but he has yet to do so. It is, as it stands, an unsupported statement, and is therefore an unsupported presumption.

Teaching Children

“Are you supporting a system of vigilante justice in which criminals are cheered when killed in the streets?”

Not killed, but eschewed in society. People could treat them contempt and unbridled resentment upon merely acknowledging their existence (i.e. saying “hello” in a nasty way). It will have a similar effect to peer pressure; people will not want to be hated by their fellow men and women. This inner insecurity can be exploited effectively to reduce the people’s tendency to act violently.

“What you are proposing is almost the exact same thing US President LBJ proposed in his Great Society and War on Poverty and it did not work.”

I would like to highlight the word “almost” in this sentence. It is possible the aspect which separates my proposal from LBJ’s is the aspect which will make my proposal work. Since the proposals are not exactly the same, we cannot conclude that my proposal effectiveness will be the same as LJB’s.

”Your argument: create a system in which crime will not exist and therefore the need for weapons disappears. However, we are talking about today's world and the situation in reality. In our current situation, if we made all weapons disappear today, it would not work. The debate is not about creating a utopian system in which weapons serve no purpose but whether or not we should destroy all weapons TODAY HERE AND NOW. And the answer to that is no. “

Your conclusion is correct relative to the information you have provided. However, “TODAY HERE AND NOW” is not specified in the terms of this debate. The resolution: “All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed”, instructs that the weapons will be destroyed in the future, not “HERE AND NOW”. Let me give you an example:

“I should not do this”, said Johnny.

Johnny has yet to “do this”, hence the “should not”. Now, Johnny is not doing “this” now or the sentence would read: “I should not be doing this”.

Conclusively, according to the resolution, the weapons must be destroyed in the future and not “HERE AND NOW”.

Weapons are Tools

“Are you suggesting the First World buy tablets to sustain the entire Third World? This isn't viable in today's day and age. This doesn't happen”.

First World countries already give plenty of aid [1] to Third World countries, and while this is far easier than what I’m suggesting, it shows that First World countries care about Third World countries. Now remember, this process will take time and does not have to happen immediately. The First World countries can slowly increase the level of aid given until the Third World countries are no longer so.

“The Third World needs weapons to hunt and protect themselves from criminals and dangers”.

Not if there are not criminals or dangers, which will happen in the long run if the methods I explained in the previous contentions are taking into account. Of course, I understand that we cannot simply remove their weapons right now. I stress this is a process that will take time.

“Man still hunts as sport and for food in some backwater areas and Third World countries. Hunting is not a dead art”. Increased aid will make hunting become obsolete (eventually).

“Once again you talk about a new society that does not pertain to this debate”.

It most certainly does pertain to this debate as this new society will rid the need for weapons. Furthermore, I have explained why having no weapons is more favourable (favourable as it reduces all the risk of creating and maintaining weapons) to having weapons (if we can choose). Therefore, we should implement this “new society” as it would allow us to choose not to have weapons as this is preferable.

“You can't just eliminate a tradition and a sport because you feel like it would help your new society”.

This is an argument of immorality (as I, given the right permission/power, can most certainly eliminate a tradition). I don’t see how it is fair that the whole of society suffers due to some “tradition”. Perhaps a computer generated world (a video-game) that allows people to carry out their “tradition[s]” would suffice as a solution.

“People would fashion their own makeshift weapons and continue without your support”.

This is, in all honesty, a guess. You cannot see the future (I’m not being facetious), and whilst you may have based this statement on what seems the most likely to happen (in your opinion), this is a conclusion based on opinion.

Resources

“In the US arms manufacturing and sales is one of the biggest industries we have. We are the world's largest weapons exporter and total revenue has totaled over 5 billion a year for the past ten years. [1] So while the military incurs costs the weapons industry makes some of it up through sales. And according to your number, overtakes "military spending" by quite a bit”. Okay, I admit defeat in this contention.

In summary, although my methods to create a new society would be hard to implement, it is still possible. My opponent exaggerates the apparent idealistic nature of my methods by implying that the world must change right here, right now. As I demonstrated, the resolution specifies that the weapons must be removed in the future, not necessarily right here, right now. A slow implementing of a new society (in every country) would eventually allow for the destruction of all weapons, which is, as I showed, preferable to having weapons.

I thank my opponent for his time and I hope this is an interesting read for anyone else.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Stop harassing her or I'll get you banned buddy.
Posted by kyelmarsh 5 years ago
kyelmarsh
um no you have done too much for me to just leave you alone. I'm sorry you sea to have mistaken me for somebody who cares.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
@ConservativePolitico

weapon: anything designed to kill or cause harm

The design of a baseball bat means it can be used to kill and cause harm....the INTENT of the baseball bat is to hit balls....a better definition of weapon if that was what you mean would be...

weapon: anything designed and intented by the designer to kill or cause harm.
Posted by xxxallyssarulezxxx 5 years ago
xxxallyssarulezxxx
Can you please leave me alone? I really don't want to be a part of your antics.
Posted by kyelmarsh 5 years ago
kyelmarsh
XD I knew you were a lair but still for the love of gods this is too much XD just looking at you're profile and then you're s on you tube you can tell it's the same person. Also if you go to change ether of them that will just sow that they are the same even more so :) You are in a loss loss situation right now. :) And Sure I might be attacking you vigorously but I have done nothing compared to you. And might I say you are the best Hypocritical lair the face of the planet scarlet woman.

Now then come at me bro [yes i know you're a girl it's just a saying so don't act stupid by saying I called you a guy]
Posted by xxxallyssarulezxxx 5 years ago
xxxallyssarulezxxx
That's not me, that's you trolling me.
Posted by kyelmarsh 5 years ago
kyelmarsh
and you still do not know who I am do you?
Posted by kyelmarsh 5 years ago
kyelmarsh
oh yes you're one to talk. Hay everybody [ http://www.youtube.com... ] This is her.

Now then come at me! I dare you >:)
Posted by xxxallyssarulezxxx 5 years ago
xxxallyssarulezxxx
Don't talk to Kyelmarsh as he is a troll.
Posted by xxxallyssarulezxxx 5 years ago
xxxallyssarulezxxx
Don't talk to Kyelmarsh as he is a troll.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
ConservativePoliticoxxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Con had this after discussing nuclear threats but Con gave an excellent rebuttal, pointing out the possibility of eliminating only global-level weapons and explaining the necessity of certain weapons at all levels of society. Pro's teaching argument never had traction given current efforts to do just that, and police brutality was not a substantial enough reason to fulfill the resolution. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
ConservativePoliticoxxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that weapons can be useful.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ConservativePoliticoxxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly he proved weapons are useful tools, this is a great argument and a plus as banning them would led to less efficient work. Secondly he proved and stated that some weapons act as deterrents. lastly he showed humans will be mean, violent, and criminals with or without weapons. Due to these reasons I believe con won.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
ConservativePoliticoxxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never successfully refuted Pro's argument about how a more utopian society can be created. Since this was basically the crux of Pro's argument they get arguments. Pro basically argued you have no need for war without weapons. Con argued weapons have stopped wars. By the way, Pro "the American military budget exceeded $1.5 Billion" you do know the DOD received a 700 billion dollar budget right?
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
ConservativePoliticoxxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I was tied going in here but Con did a great job. His succinct clarity gained him the linguistic vote for spelling and grammar. He clearly won arguments as Pro, diverged in a 'possible' utopian concept and did not come back. I felt Con was correct in weapons function as deterrents.