The Instigator
4567TME
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
MassiveDump
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

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 6 votes the winner is...
MassiveDump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,392 times Debate No: 34682
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

4567TME

Pro

What on earth are these anti-gun control people going on about? You may say that criminals won't follow gun laws, so we shouldn't have them, but that is akin to saying that there should be no laws against arson because arsonists won't follow them. No one can argue that gun violence is heinous, and we can prevent future crimes by making sure legally obtainable guns are kept under better control.
MassiveDump

Con

"What on earth are these anti-gun control people going on about?"

Just spitballing here, but it is likely that they are going on about Anti-Gun control.

"You may say that criminals won't follow gun laws, so we shouldn't have them, but that is akin to saying that there should be no laws against arson because arsonists won't follow them."

I would beg to differ. When someone steals your car in the middle of the freeway, most people would not defend themselves by setting someone's house on fire. Taking guns away from the law-abiding population takes away their ability to defend themselves from those who disregard gun bans, therefore increasing crime rather than decreasing it.

"No one can argue that gun violence is heinous,"

I thought that's what you were doing.

"and we can prevent future crimes by making sure legally obtainable guns are kept under better control."

Tell that to this guy:



And this guy:



And why don't you say that to THIS GUY:



People like '70s black-sploitation star Dolemite don't care what laws say. They will own guns, and it will leave others defenseless.

And so, the defense rests it's case. take it away, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
4567TME

Pro

"Taking guns away from the law-abiding population takes away their ability to defend themselves from those who disregard gun bans, therefore increasing crime rather than decreasing it."
I, in no way, will agree with removing all guns from all citizens -- all I'm saying is that for current gun purchases, we should have limits on what kind of guns should be purchased -- you shouldn't need an AK-47 to defend your home, a Glock or something like it should do. The arson was just an example, I could have substituted it with rape, as I could have said "Since rapists don't follow laws, we shouldn't have laws against rape" as an example of my disbelief of the anti-gun control group.

Oh, and I think that some people would attempt to track down the person that stole their car, and then set that person's house on fire.

Are you really objecting to all gun laws?

I hope you're not.

But if you are...



MassiveDump

Con

"all I'm saying is that for current gun purchases, we should have limits on what kind of guns should be purchased,"

That was not defined in the resolution. When my opponent's brings up what he specifically means on gun control after I made an argument of my own, that's called having an abusive case.

And the voters should take note that we are not here to argue whether or not gun control should be legal. We are arguing whether or not opponents to gun control laws have a basis, a matter in which my opponent completely conceded.

"We should have limits on what kind of guns should be purchased,"

My opponent still does not have an understanding of what 2nd Amendment supporters' basis is. Gun control will not stop gang members and domestic terrorists from having AK-47s. If all hell breaks loose in America, having an AK-47 is not all that bad of a precaution.

But once again, we're not arguing whether or not it should be legal.

"I could have said 'Since rapists don't follow laws, we shouldn't have laws against rape,'"


...And I could have said "When someone steals your car in the middle of the freeway, most people would not get their car back by raping someone."

"Oh, and I think that some people would attempt to track down the person that stole their car, and then set that person's house on fire."

That's not a rational means of getting your car back.

Nicholas Cage has no Ethos.

All you really need to know:

My opponent has conceded that Anti-Gun control people have no basis for their belief. That's all that matters.
Debate Round No. 2
4567TME

Pro

Impressive round, I'm impressed.

1) I was not off topic, it was supplementary for my argument.

2) In what universe do you believe no one will do a thing to prevent the further dissolve of America into a chaos state?

3) The domestic terrorist/AK47 argument you present is in no way a valid argument against gun control. It can be assumed that a crime like this will take place within a heavy metropolitan area, where there are large police numbers nearby, where heavier grade weaponry will be present to attempt to deflect such attacks -- As handled by the police. This is an argument where if you look ito it, it dissipates. Hence my point, most, if not all anti-gun control points have no practical basis.

(Isn't it clear I'm new here?)
MassiveDump

Con

1. My opponent's points on gun control would have been supplementary for his argument, if he made an argument to go with it. Since he didn't, I have to call it a concession.

2. Not speaking for myself here, but Anti-Gun Control have beliefs that include a state of chaos potentially arising. if an EMP, for example, went of on American soil, little could be done to prevent Anarchy.

And whether that's true or not, that's part of the strong basis for which Pro-Gun people have their beliefs.

3. "The domestic terrorist/AK47 argument you present is in no way a valid argument against gun control. It can be assumed that a crime like this will take place within a heavy metropolitan area, where there are large police numbers nearby, where heavier grade weaponry will be present to attempt to deflect such attacks -- As handled by the police."

No it can't. If it could be assumed that law enforcement can always come to the rescue and prevent gang-related crimes and domestic terrorism, then gang-related crimes and terrorism wouldn't happen. Since they happen, it can't be assumed that law enforcement will immediately come to our aid and protect us.

"most, if not all anti-gun control points have no practical basis."

Here's what we managed to establish in the debate:

While my opponent argues that only the big guns need to be banned, we are seeing the government focusing on banning handguns as well. Gun supporters want to keep their handguns because of the following reasons:

-An EMP attack could easily happen.
-Gang crimes do happen.
-Domestic terrorism does happen.
-Homes do get invaded.

This is the practical basis for which people want to own guns.

The resolution has been negated completely.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
1. Deal with it,
2. I have a RESPECT for my brothas, that's why I made them look so B.A.
3. Ethos = Credibility,
4. Deal with it,
5. Because of how I was raised? Dafuq?
6. Gang violence happens to everyone, I've played GTA.
7.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
F*king deal with it.
Posted by gt4o2007 4 years ago
gt4o2007
Gang violence happens more often against other gangs not against random people in a suburban neighborhood. If someone does not live in a gang infested area or are in a gang then what would your protection be against just a burglar? My point is that you are randomly scared of black males probably because of how you were raised. White guys have no ethos= ethics? And I will definitely deal with the fact that you have an ignorant fear of black males.
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
@gt40.

1. Deal with it
2. I was talking about gang violence, not mass shootings, gang violence happens more often.
3. White guys with guns have no ethos.

.
.
.
.
.

4. Deal with it
Posted by 2-D 4 years ago
2-D
Gun debates should always consider Switzerland. Not even kidding it's not the guns it's our culture: http://world.time.com...
Posted by gt4o2007 4 years ago
gt4o2007
I love how it turned into criminals and the only pictures were of black guy's with guns. Yet the only time the Gun debate comes into question is when a mass shooting in America happens which in that case since 1982 there has been at least 62 mass shootings across the country 44 of the shooters were white males. http://www.motherjones.com... lets not make the criminal a stereotypical black man that accounts for very little of the race and the same for other races.
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
whoops :P
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "My opponent has conceded that Anti-Gun control people have no basis for their belief. That's all that matters."

This was a WTF moment in the debate...If PRO really "conceded" this, then PRO would have won the debate.

Regardless, the rest of the debate showed that PRO's position, whatever it was, had little to no basis. CON satisfactorily provided some justification for gun ownership, and PRO never gave a serious rebuttal.

Arguments and conduct to CON (conduct because of a poorly crafted and inconsistent resolution), S&G to PRO for the WTF moment, only because it was that glaring of a typo.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Too early in the morning to vote... but nice to see the M.D. is debating again.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
4567TMEMassiveDumpTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con defeated Pro's resolution, then went on to continue to argue against Pro's non-resolutional items.
Vote Placed by SlaterJ23 4 years ago
SlaterJ23
4567TMEMassiveDumpTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more organized and had a solid base to his argument. Pro more so just backtracked trying to save himself from his flawed arguments
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
4567TMEMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Surprised this wasn't a troll debate, lol.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
4567TMEMassiveDumpTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con accurately responded to the qeustions posed in R1 by pro. Pro debated poorly, and left a lot of loopholes open that Con destroyed easily. Con was humerous in this debate, but more importantly accurate. Pro needs to better define his stance on the position, and outline a case. This was way too easy for Con to manipulate a win on.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
4567TMEMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro kept rambling on about things completely irrelevant to the resolution, and when he tried to refute Con's arguments, they were repetitive and weak. Con was more focused on the debate and kept on topic with better and accurate arguments. Also, as Con pointed out, Pro loses a conduct loss for his abusive case and explaining what he means by gun control AFTER Con made his arguments.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
4567TMEMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con because pro posted a meme. Pro also didn't explain his thesis(title, subject, whatever). Con countered pro easily.