The Instigator
Juris_Naturalis
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Wocambs
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

An AR15 is a suitable option for home defence and hunting

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 2 votes the winner is...
Juris_Naturalis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,742 times Debate No: 34987
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

Juris_Naturalis

Pro

1st round acceptance.

suitable- a : adapted to a use or purpose
b : satisfying propriety : proper
c : able, qualified

Taken from (1)

1 http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Wocambs

Con

I accept your challenge.

I also find it pertinent that we agree that the definition of 'to defend' is "to drive danger or attack away from".

(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

'Home defence' requires the transitive.

Now, as you bear the burden of proof, present your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

Home Defense:

An AR15 is a suitable option for home defence because it is a short, lightweight firearm that is known for having little recoil and being very easy to shoot. The model of AR15 I own and have trained with is 32.5 inches and 6 pounds exactly(IV). I've calculated a quick average of 3 home defense shotguns and they average 39.3 inches and 6.9 pounds(I,II,III). A shorter overall length means that it will be easier to navigate through doorways and around corners and such. Because they have low recoil and an adjustable stock(IV), they can be easily used by any person of any age and size. The 5.56 NATO/.223 remington round utilized by the AR15 is an excellent choice for home defense because it gives you the most lethality of a rifle/shotgun, without nearly as much over-penetration if you miss or the round happens to go through the home intruder (V). They are semi-automatic and come standard with 30 round magazines, which allows you to make quick follow through shots and prevents you from having to reload as much as other firearms if there are multiple perpetrators. The M4 carbine (which is a military/LE version of the AR15) has recently been adopted by the Chicago P.D in order to more effectivelty combat gangs (VI). If it's good enough to be used by the police department, wouldn't you say it's good enough to use in your own home?


Hunting:

Yes, there have been models of the AR15 specifically designed to be used as hunting rifles as shown by VII and VIII. The reason being is that the 5.56/.223 Remington is also a very popular round to be used on varmint such as rabbit, prarie dogs and the like, as well as being able to take down deer and hogs if you're a good shot, and it's fairly inexpensive (IX). It's weight, which I mentioned earlier, makes it easier to carry out in the field for long periods of time.

It will seem like V is empty, but it's the youtube video. My apologies for the different font sizes for the sources. I'm still trying to figure out the font size and style changes.










I. http://www.mossberg.com...

II. http://www.remington.com...

III. http://www.winchesterguns.com...

IV. http://www.bushmaster.com...

V.

VI.http://www.infiniteunknown.net...

VII. http://www.bushmaster.com...

VIII. http://www.fulton-armory.com...

IX.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wocambs

Con

My argument will likely not focus on the AR15 specifically, but on guns in general.

A 'suitable option' is not one which is perfect; however, I think there is certainly a standard to attain in order to be deemed 'suitable'. How effective are guns at defending the home? Well, a study by A. L. Kellerman et al investigating "the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide" found that from 626 shootings at residences, that "every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."[1]

This gives a 22:1 ratio of 'unsuitable' use to 'suitable' use, which means that just 4.3% of the shootings studied were legal, and it is important to note that police officers carried out 23% of these legal shootings, giving a final, lowly figure of 3.3% of shootings being carried out by law-abiding citizens. It does not appear reasonable to suggest that a weapon which is used wrongly 96.7% of the time is a 'suitable option', for this 'margin of error' is truly leviathan, and I think the strength of the conclusion lends credibility to the study. You may wish to argue that when 'used correctly' it functions well, but it appears to be incredibly difficult to ensure this.

N.B. This is not an isolated study, there are others with similarly outrageous findings.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

Self defence :

First off, you can't just change the posted definitions. If you had a problem with the definitions you should have said so in Round 1. Secondly, I clearly stated in the Thesis of the debate, that the firearm in question here is about the AR15, not guns in general. Thirdly, since when does something have to be "perfect" in order to be suitable for a task? You cite that guns are more often used in crime than in self defense, but how exactly does this automaticlly make it ill-suited to be used for the task at hand? "Oh my gosh, it was used in a crime, we can't defend ourselves with it anymore". How does that make any sense? Firearms are without a doubt, the most suited tools for self defense in general because they are effective against multiple attackers in a rapid manner, and use lethal force. So if a firearm is unsuitable for home defense, where you very well may be facing multiple, possibly armed criminals, as shown by 1,2 and 3. Also, your cited study was done in 1998 and in only 3 cities. 15 years ago. I thinks it's just a tad outdated, don't you? Gary Kleck, a renouned criminologist, has found that foricble resistance against an attacker is will improve your odds of not being injured in your confrontation. He also cites that firearms are used over 2 million times in self defense(4). Lastly, you, overall, claim that all guns are unsuitable for home defence. That is not the burden of proof to be upheld by your position, your burden of proof is to show that an AR15 specifically is unsuitable for home defence and hunting, which you have not showed.



Hunting: I have no further arguments until Con addresses them.








1.

2.

3.

4.
Wocambs

Con

I protest; I do not feel that I have changed any definitions. Furthermore, I am rather sceptical as to how carefully you make these claims considering that the incompatibility of my statement, "A 'suitable option' is not one which is perfect", and your criticism, "since when does something have to be "perfect" in order to be suitable for a task?".

Your criticism regarding my choice to attack 'all guns' instead of the AR15 specifically is fairly ridiculous. To my knowledge, the civilian AR15 is a fairly typical civilian firearm, and therefore it is reasonable to think that studies and statements concerning civilian firearms are applicable to the AR15. One may as well argue that all of the studies that show excessive drinking is harmful do not apply to Saffron's Silent Night porter, because no one has ever studied or made statements concerning excessive consumption of Saffron's beer. For all we know, there might be hepatoprotective compounds in this particular porter... If you wish to argue this, I think it is reasonable to suggest that you should provide some reason for thinking that studies and statements regarding 'all guns' should not apply to the AR15.

"You cite that guns are more often used in crime than in self defense, but how exactly does this automaticlly make it ill-suited to be used for the task at hand?" [sic]

In general, it does. If a drug was developed that provided mild pain relief for 50% of test subjects, but caused excruciating pain in the remaining 50%, and if the effect could not be predicted, would we call this drug 'a suitable option for a headache'? I think not, even though it may work for many people. All (or close enough to all) drugs can have terrible side effects, but the risk of these is typically very low for drugs available to almost anyone, and although you would be right to say that mild side effects can be quite common, e.g. ibuprofen causes side-effects in 25% of patients, apparently, the 'side effects' associated with firearms of death and serious injury are, clearly, of considerable gravity. [1] Considering the severity of the 'side effects', to continue the metaphor, of guns and the prevalence of these, as stated in the previous report, create a compelling case against the suitability of guns, and therefore the AR15, for home defence.

"Firearms are without a doubt, the most suited tools for self defense in general because they are effective against multiple attackers in a rapid manner, and use lethal force."

Well, who's discussing firearms in general now? Petty jabs aside, I return to my previous point. Though they may be effective in certain situations, they are used to disastrous effect in the considerable majority of cases. If (lets say) 90% of the time putting a gun in your home is going to lead to suffering, when you intend the opposite, this is clearly not a suitable choice 90% of the time. Having a rabid St. Bernard dog in your home might prevent burglary, but Kujo is clearly unsuitable, because in all likelihood he will bite you too.

My cited study is outdated? You can't have your cake and eat it. While reading a criticism of Kleck's conclusion of "over 2 million", I realised that the report I was reading was published in 1997.[2] Kleck's work must of course be even older than my 1998 study, and it appears to have been conducted between 1993 and 1994. Furthermore, I shall elaborate on the criticism, albeit through quotation.

"One check on the credibility of these DGU estimates is made possible by the detailed follow-up questions included in both these surveys... From the NSPOF, we estimate that 322,000 used a gun to defend against a would-be rapist. But that is more than the total number of rapes and attempted rapes estimated from the best available source, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)!6.... Our closer examination of the DGU reports in the NSPOF suggests that almost half of the incidents appear to contain some internal inconsistency, or otherwise do not make sense"

So by extrapolating the results from the survey using the same method as Kleck did, it appears that guns prevented an incredible amount of rapes, and furthermore, the respondents appear to contradict themselves quite regularly.

They also discuss the 'false positive' which can produce some seemingly bizarre results.

"In a total of almost 65,000 screening examinations (mammography plus physical exam), 1115 women were "positive" and followed up with biopsies. As it turned out, 983 (92 percent) of these positive tests were false, in the sense that they were not confirmed in the follow-up. Yet this result is not an indictment of mammography-indeed, the false positive rate was only 1.5 percent. But that was sufficient, given the rarity of the true positives (less than 0.3 percent) to ensure that most positive results would be false"

As you can see, if the incidence of false positives is significantly greater than the incidence of the true positive, results can become misleading. I came across this report in a website which actually contains even more articles, with titles such as "Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal", and "Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens". [3]

A recent metastudy, by an author who contributed to the previous report, found that "scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit" and that "there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in".[4] We must remember that using a weapon for 'home defence' necessarily involves keeping a gun in the home, which is why this has been the focus of my attack.

With regards to hunting, I think hunting accidents are actually quite rare, and so I do not think I will be criticising the AR15 for hunting purposes, after all, I know very little about hunting and yet I know that the AR15 is a good choice - was it not a gun "modelled on the AR-15" (the two guns appear identical, to me) that was used by the Beltway sniper?[5][6] A fine, if immoral, display of accuracy.

[1] http://www.drugs.com...
[2] http://home.uchicago.edu...
[3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
[4] http://ajl.sagepub.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

A 'suitable option' is not one which is perfect;

Your words, not mine.



Your criticism regarding my choice to attack 'all guns' instead of the AR15 specifically is fairly ridiculous. To my knowledge, the civilian AR15 is a fairly typical civilian firearm, and therefore it is reasonable to think that studies and statements concerning civilian firearms are applicable to the AR15.

Funny you should bring that up, because, like I said, your study wsa done in 1998. 4 years after President Clinton signed the AWB which effectively banned the AR15. So it is reasonable to assume that a very low number, if any at all, where in play in that study. Another reason not to include all gun studies with the AR15 is their functional, mechanical and preformance differences. AR15s are more accurate and lethal than handguns, more compact and lighter than shotguns with a higher potential magazine capacity than both.



In general, it does. If a drug was developed that provided mild pain relief for 50% of test subjects, but caused excruciating pain in the remaining 50%, and if the effect could not be predicted, would we call this drug 'a suitable option for a headache'?

This is different case altogether, the last time I checked, A person can't choose how they react to a drug. What they're essentially doing is taking a pill and hoping the problem goes away. Not so with self defence, self defence requires you to be proactive on your part, otherwise, don't bother worrying about it.



Though they may be effective in certain situations, they are used to disastrous effect in the considerable majority of cases. If (lets say) 90% of the time putting a gun in your home is going to lead to suffering, when you intend the opposite, this is clearly not a suitable choice 90% of the time. Having a rabid St. Bernard dog in your home might prevent burglary, but Kujo is clearly unsuitable, because in all likelihood he will bite you too.

I used the term firearm because that's what your study said. I find it interesting enough, that in your study, it says that for every one justifiable homicide (I paraphrase here), there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides and 11 suicides. Let's break this down here for a second. By unintentional, I'm just going to assume it was an accidental discharge. This is a problem caused by the person not being either, safe, competent or mature with whatever firearm happened to be on scene. This problem is easily remedied by proper education. On the 7 homicides note, your study does not say if the homeowners firearm of choice was used against them, or if it was the perps gun. Something to consider isn't it? And I find the 11 suicides irrelevant because if someone really wants to kill themself, not having a gun isn't going to stop them. People have knives, they have cars, and rope is cheap. The 11 suicides via firearm, are not the fault of the firearm, it's the fault of mental health of the person.

You're arguments after this, involving acronyms that you don't explain, lost me. You're source (no.3) says that the 1-3 million number is fase, but doesn't offer a more accurate number. Convenient. Interestingly, David Hemenway, who participated in your third source, is re-estimating his numbers because there has been a reported drop from the FBI in murder and assault by 41 percent. According to (1.) He deduces a drop in crime will lead to a parallel shift in defensive firearm use. Again, I use the term firearm because that's what all your sources say.


A recent metastudy, by an author who contributed to the previous report, found that "scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit" and that "there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in".[4] We must remember that using a weapon for 'home defence' necessarily involves keeping a gun in the home, which is why this has been the focus of my attack.


Look, I've already stated, that suicide is not the fault of the gun, but of the mental health of the person who kills themself. If someone genuinely wants to kill themself, not having a gun won't stop them. The gun was just the first option for them. I've already shown in my other arguments that defencive uses of an AR15 or whatever firearm you may have, are not mythical. As to intimidation of women, this too is a character flaw, like the wish of suicide, that will not simply go away just because they don't have a gun.


i'm also curious as to wonder, If a firearm (I use this term because that's what your sources use. I mean this with sincerity when I say it would be nice if you could bring forth something that deals with AR15s exclusively, as that is what we're arguing, not firearms in general) isn't suitable for home defence, than what is?



Well, there goes the hunting argument. My opponent agrees with me while citing an immoral use of an amoral object.


1. http://www.standard.net...
Wocambs

Con

My opponent has not given suitable grounds for believing that the AR15 is detached from other firearms to the extent that studies concerning firearms should not be applied to it. To return to my beer analogy, Saffron's porter is brewed in different conditions, using different ingredients, in different proportions, yet this does not mean we should regard the results of studies regarding alcoholic beverages as irrelevant to discussion of Saffron's porter. I am defending this point only because it may be of critical importance.

I think I am justified in saying that my opponent argues that in the right hands, the AR15 is a suitable option for home defence, while I argue that people, in general, fall short of being the 'right hands'.

I am not going to be intellectually dishonest. It is obvious that 'in the right hands', the AR15 can be used as a suitable option, because to prove that you would only need one example of that being the case.

However, it is not currently suitable for the vast majority of 'responsible adults' to keep firearms such as the AR15 in their home for the purpose of 'home defence'. There is no caveat in the title of this debate, although my opponent refers to 'character flaws', he does appear to argue that anyone who is entitled to defend their home is entitled to own an AR15, as, he appears to argue, this is the most suitable option for home defence.

I refer to the question he has frequently posed: 'If the AR15 is not suitable, then what is?' - clearly, the AR15 is his champion. Furthermore, he has stated that the problems I have raised "will not simply go away just because they don't have a gun". Presumably, even people who bully and intimidate others are entitled to defend their home from criminals, as are the mentally unsound, for if this was not the case then any attempt by a schizophrenic to defend her home would be wrong, and that is not the case. As preventing these individuals from owning AR15s would not solve any problems other than the problem of their home being broken into, they should have access to the AR15. If my opponent's argument is true, then every adult who is entitled to defend their home should be permitted to own an AR15.

I shall summarise the argument, accepting your points as true.
1. The AR15 is a suitable option for home defence.
2. Ownership of the AR15 in itself does not cause negative consequences such as intimidation, suicide, murder, etc.
Therefore, the only effect of allowing someone to own an AR15 is that crimes against their home will be prevented.
Therefore, anyone permitted to defend their home should also be permitted to own an AR15.

Of course, this is an argument I strongly disagree with, for otherwise I would not be opposing in this debate. As studies show, firearms are far more likely to be used irresponsibly than responsibly in the home, and you cannot absolve weapons of all blame. It is easy to intimidate someone when you have a weapon in your hand; it is easy to make a bad decision and kill yourself when instead of having to go to great lengths to achieve death you can simply shoot yourself. Firearms make a lot of things easy, but often it is the wrong things which become easy.

You might think that you can use an AR15 responsibly, and perhaps you can, but if so, you do not represent the majority in this respect. The AR15 might be a suitable option for some people, but my opponent must, if he is not to contradict himself, refuse to accept that statement and my caveat, and that is where he is wrong.

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil" - Jeff Cooper, "Art of the Rifle" [1]

Yes, but there are far more fools pointing rifles than there are burglars who need rifles pointed at them.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
I never said it was the most suitable. I just tried to show that it's more suitable than most people think.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
Had Juris wanted to debate cannabis, would I violating conduct if I argued that all mind-altering substances should be illegal? (A view I do not hold)

Had Juris wished to debate a single instance of abortion, would I be violating conduct if I argued that any taking of life is always wrong? (A view I do not hold)

The simple fact is that Juris' proposition is open to the arguments I put forward. Had he proposed that "The AR15 is the most suitable firearm for home defence and hunting", then obviously my arguments would not be applicable, as it is clear that the debate compares firearms. The proposition he did make, however, is clearly open to the arguments I put forward, because it is not explicity entailed by the propositon that my position was one of advocating the superiority of another weapon.

I have absolutely understanding as to why you think I lack understanding of the term 'suitable'. Had you actually read my argument you would see that I compare guns with medicine in this respect.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
The studies that show guns cause suicide confuse correlation with causality. It means the factors that cause suicide are often common to the factors that cause gun ownership. There is also a cultural factor in which people thinking of suicide first think of using a gun. Some societies with high suicide hates have complete gun bans. Japan has an effective gun ban, with virtually no guns used for suicide. Yet their suicide rate is among the highest in the world. Clearly it isn't guns causing the suicides. without guns, people would come to think of other methods than guns as a first choice.

Because the US has a great deal of rural land for hunting and includes people who actually need to hunt for food to survive, there is no chance of a complete ban. If a ban were imposed, there is no chance of it succeeding. There is a constitutional guarantee to self-defense and a very strong tradition. All the discussion has been about types of weapons and specific locations, not about a complete ban.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
@wocombs, You wanted to debate a different topic, and went ahead an did so. The resolution names a specific weapon and says it is suitable for home defense and hunting. If it were about guns in general, it would have been phrases, "Guns should be allowed for home defense." The reference to hunting makes it abundantly clear that it was about being "suitable" and not about a general ban. If you had any doubt what "suitable" meant in the resolution, you should have asked the Instigator. You could have also done a quick web search that would have revealed all the controversy over AR-15s as being suitable or unsuitable. Looking up suitable in a dictionary would work as well.

You simple refused to debate the resolution because you wanted to debate something else. that's a conduct violation, and it means your arguments and sources are irrelevant.

If you want to debate a complete gun ban, I'll debate you.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
RoyLatham has voted with his heart and not his mind in order to put Juris_Naturalis in the lead, shown by absurd decisions to allocate points and a bizarre discourse in his comment on the debate.

Firstly, your justification for your vote does not make any sense, unless you think that it was necessary for me to answer ' What is a suitable option for home defence?', which is not entailed by my burden of proof at all. Furthermore, it cannot be sensibly argued that my opponent used better sources than I did, and Juris_Naturalis' position on sources is considerably weakened by his hypocritical attacks on my own.

Then he ignores the fact that I mentioned homicides, accidental deaths and intimidaton in order to focus on suicide. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... shows that guns are indeed likely to cause suicide. Cause suicide? Well yes; it's much harder to kill yourself with a homemade noose or pills than with a gun. My friend has tried twice to kill himself, thankfully failing, and yet I think I can be fairly sure that he would be dead had he blasted his own brains out.

The simple fact of the matter is that I disagreed with Juris_Naturalis' position, and I put forward a relevant argument. I fail to see how that consitutes bad conduct. If all guns are unsuitable, it follows that the AR15 too is unsuitable, and therefore my argument is relevant.

I also see hints in the comment that RoyLatham prefers the AR15 to the pistol on the grounds that the AR15 is more likely to be used 'responsibly', but it seems fairly obvious that this is correlative. I'm not sure well this translates to America, but drinkers of expensive porter are far less likely to be involved in violent altercations than drinkers of cheap cider - I don't think anyone would suggest that swapping their drinks would make a difference.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Even if one had never heard of the controversy over the AR-15, the resolution specifies a specific weapon and not about weapons in general. That's enough of a clue for con to at least ask in the comments if he could debate weapons in general.

The number one reason why AR-15s are so popular in the United States is that returning war veterans are completely familiar with them. Vets also know the characteristics of light weight, low recoil, and reliability. Vice President Biden said that weapons like the AR-15 ought to be banned in favor of shotguns.

The majority of gun deaths from guns in the home are suicides. Suicides are almost always pistols rather than rifles, and it's doubtful that a suicide would be prevented by lack of a gun. Pills are a ready alternative for suicide.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
"my opponent fully expected to face arguments of the kind I proposed, although perhaps he expected more 'anti-assault weapon' argument from me and less general discussion of firearms."

Yeah that's what I meant. If I meant all guns in general, I would have said so.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
That does make sense, but I am not an American, and I was previously unaware of the intricacies of the debate, particularly concerning the vilification / championing of the AR15.

Regardless, the instigator's intentions appear to be irrelevant, since I am not charged with being training dummy who must put forward an argument predetermined by the instigator, but rather I am charged with analysing his statement and finding a fault in it. Wherefore is there foul play if I have provided honestly the reasons I disagree with him within the scope of the debate? My arguments fall within the scope of 'gun control'; what would have been a possible instance of 'bad conduct' is if I attacked the morality of hunting or if I attempted to prove that 'suitable' is so subjective of a word that nothing can be objectively suitable, etc.
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
I think it's pretty obvious that Pro intended to have a debate against the sort of views expressed in this article and the like: http://www.slate.com...

Not a debate about gun ownership in general.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
hightreason, if you look at the previous comments you can see that Juris_Naturalis wrote that "the main argument of liberals is that you can't use an AR15 for hunting or home defence". It is my understanding that in America, 'liberals' are in favour of gun control; therefore, the debate was already understood in that context, and my opponent fully expected to face arguments of the kind I proposed, although perhaps he expected more 'anti-assault weapon' argument from me and less general discussion of firearms.

I don't think that Juris_Naturalis intended for this to be debate to be a situation in which I would propose something similar to 'Actually, the AK-74 is far superior to the AR15...'. If he did, then I apologise, but that seems to be a rather dull and esoteric debate.

Feel free to describe these flaws to me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Juris_NaturalisWocambsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con decided he didn't want to debate the resolution as written, which was clearly about the choice of weapon for home defense and not about whether homeowners should be allowed to have any weapon for home defense. Refusing to debate the resolution is a conduct penalty. Cons arguments and references relevant to the resolution were not rebutted. con should have declined the challenge and instead posted his own challenge to Pro on a different topic.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
Juris_NaturalisWocambsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments for the poor record of firearms in performing the task of home defense sufficiently refutes the argument that the option is "suitable". Conduct to Con for Pro complaining about the dated nature of a source then responding with...a more dated source. Spelling and grammar on Pro's part needs significant improvement. He had a spelling error in the resolution itself.