The Instigator
paulbrevik
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Banning guns

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...
paulbrevik
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,642 times Debate No: 34358
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

paulbrevik

Con

If anyone believes in the banning of firearms, I would like to hear your argument. Firstly, It is against the second amendment to the constitution, secondly, In every place where guns have been banned, gun crime has skyrocketed, thirdly, explain why criminals will obey that law while breaking numerous others, fourthly, why should people not be able to defend themselves? Fifthly, why would a ban take guns off the street when it has not done so at all with illegal drugs? Sixthly, if you believe number 4 is irrelevant, why do police officers need them? Thanks for a response. And by the way, only accept if you will actually participate.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate, however, I believe it shan't be to difficult to tear his arguments down sufficiently.

Rebutting My Opponent's Argument

The Constitution

People in the 1700's live a completely different life then we do in 2013. The idea that we have to follow some set of rules created hundreds of years ago is just ludicrous. We should create a new set of rules based on how people live their lives today, because today is much different. Therefore, falling back on the constitution does nothing to show one's position is correct.

Gun Banning Equates To Higher Rate of Gun Crimes

Correlation does not equal causation unless it can be tested (Pro also provided no sources). Regardless, this argument from Pro would indicate that we need even harsher gun laws. This is because if there are more gun crimes, this means there are guns that these people are using that they should have never had their hands on in the first place!


Criminals Obeying Certain Laws

"Explain why criminals will obey that law while breaking numerous others" - Pro

Not being able to explain the above really has no bearing on the resolution. You would have to ask a psychologist that one.


Self-Defense

People who need guns for self-defense, only need them to defend themselves against people with other guns. If we sweep the guns off of the streets, there will be no reason for people to need to defend themselves with guns anymore.


Why Guns And Not Drugs?

This point from Pro is outrageous. Guns aren't anywhere near as bad as drugs. This is like asking why I want harsher rape laws, but not laws against infidelity?

Why do police officers need them?

Officers need them because there are guns on the street. If we take away these killing machines, cops would not need them as much now would they?

Conclusion

Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. All of his argument backfired, and I showed why its best to remove guns from the street.
Debate Round No. 1
paulbrevik

Con

Constitution:
It appears you do not like the constitution. So I will ignore this as your arguments need not be constitutional.

Crime rates: In every single case in which restrictive gun control or bans have been brought into place, crime rates have gone up. It doesn't matter how low the end crime rate may be, as it may be quite low. But It was lower still prior to the bans. [1] This is due to a simple phenomenon. I call it the sitting duck argument. Criminals will always get guns. They are simple pieces of machinery and criminals have gotten them illegally in the past. [2] If guns are banned, civilians turn them in. This leads to defenseless civilians. So the criminals, who do not turn in their illegal guns, attack more and more people because they know that the civilian, who obeys the law, will not be able to protect themselves by shooting the criminal. Source 1 includes this fact. Also, it has been shown that mass shooters routinely attack "gun free zones", because they know that no one there will be able to defend themselves with a firearm. For example, james holmes chose the one movie theater out of the 7 that were within 20 minutes of his home that banned concealed carry of handguns. It was not the closest, or the biggest.[3] I wonder why. To be simple, why do places with strict gun control, like chicago, have the highest crime rates, and places where many civilians are armed, there is so little crime? [3]

Criminals following only some laws:
If you are a criminal committing crimes, why would you turn in your gun to comply with some other law? I can't see into the minds of criminals, but this is very simple logic.

Self defense:

Most attacks on the streets do not occur with firearms.[4] People need a gun to defend themselves because you are much more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.[4] And banning guns does not just remove them from the streets. If it did, I'd be for banning guns. But it doesn't, as it hasn't in chicago, DC, and a host of other cities. It is similar to my next point,

Guns vs. Drugs

We banned alcohol in the 1920's and what happened? More illegal bars and alcohol.[5] We banned cocaine and other illegal drugs, but there is still a lot of cocaine on the streets. Why? Because criminals don't comply with these bans. If they don't work, why would a gun ban work?

Police officers:

Police officers do not need their guns because there are guns on the streets. They need them for the defense of themselves and others from all forms of threat. If you attack a police officer with a knife, he will draw his gun. Why? Because a gun is an effective method of defense.

Sources:
1. http://www.gunfacts.info...
2. http://www.gunfacts.info...
3. http://www.foxnews.com...
4. http://www.gunfacts.info...
5. http://www.pbs.org...
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

In my last round I said "Pro" instead of "Con" by accident. Just thought I would throw that out there...

Constitution

This here is a straw-man fallacy [1] from Con. I never claimed that I did "not like" the constitution. I simply claimed that he gave no good reason to think it is infallible...

Crime Rates

My opponent's assertion does nothing to substantiate the notion that gun laws cause more crime; as his link was not accompanied by any statistics within his round, and you have to sift through the site to find exactly where Con sourced his information from. However, if Con does believe that correlation equates to causation pertaining to this area of discussion, then I have some references of my own accompanied with statistics within my round itself. Since the early 1990's gun violence has been decreasing in the United States. Also, the number of gun owners in America has dropped substantially since then[2]. There is a clear correlation there.

I still maintain that if guns are out of the hands of the criminals, then civilians do not need guns. I would know, I live in Canada. We do not have much gun violence here (we also do not have that many guns either). In 2009, there were only 173 deaths by guns and Canadians legally own roughly around 9,950,000 guns [3]. In 2009 in the United States had 31,347 deaths due to guns, and 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 guns are owned by Americans [4]. There is a clear pattern. In addition, 19,392 of the 38,264 American suicides in 2010 were due to guns [5]. This means that guns are most likely aiding people in taking their own lives. One could argue that they would still find a way to kill themselves even if they did not have a gun. Yet, the truth of this is not at all obvious. Many people only go through with suicide if it will be quick and easy, as not everyone wants to go through the painful death of popping pills for example. Basically, Con has the burden of proof and he is failing to meet it.

Sitting Duck Argument

My opponent says that having harsher gun laws makes civilians sitting ducks against the evil doers. This claim is justified by the claim that criminals can always get guns illegally. This argument is not convincing at all as it is presented, because there is no reason to believe that most crimes are done with illegal weapons. If most crimes are done with legal weapons, then harsher gun laws takes guns out of the hands of the criminals; thus making his argument void. The burden of proof has not been met in this regard either.

Criminals Following Only Some Laws

Con is not qualifying the difference in severity when it comes to certain crimes. This makes his argument here trivial.

Self Defense

Con mentions that most assaults are not due to guns, but this is rather meaningless. Murder is much more severe than assault and most murders in the United States are done with guns. 11,101 of the 15,953 homicides were committed by guns [4], which shows a huge gun problem that needs to be solved immediately. Thus, since correlation equating to causation is an accepted axiom based on my opponents previous rounds, then my opponent has clearly taken an extreme beating in this round.

Guns vs. Drugs

Comparing guns to drugs in this fashion is comparing apples and oranges. Also, it truly has no bearing on the resolution and can be disregarded.

Police Officers

Even if I granted my opponent this point, it is still a red-herring [6]. I am not arguing that police should have their guns stripped, but this is how it is in England [7], so I do not know the point my opponent is trying to get across. Besides, between 1961 and 2009, 92% of all police officer deaths in the United States were due to guns [8]. Stricter gun laws are needed to protect police officers, who are way more vunerable to more gun injuries than stab wounds.

The Colorado Massacre and the Sandy Hook Shooting

Harsher gun laws need to be set in place to prevent more tragedies like the Colorado shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting, both of which were done with legally owned weapons [9][10]. You can only kill so many people with sticks and knives. Guns are the cause of massacres similar to these two.

Conclusion

Not only did Con not meet his burden, but I provided more solid and compelling evidence for my case. Since the validity of basing arguments off of correlation pertaining to statistics has clearly been accepted as an underlying assumption in this debate; it is clear that as it stands, the resolution has been affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[4] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[5] http://highlander.highlands.edu...
[6] http://www.nizkor.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.statcan.gc.ca...
[9] http://newsfeed.time.com...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
paulbrevik

Con

Firstly, I am not arguing that guns' presence decreases crime. I know that if there were no guns, there would be less crime. I am arguing that a legal ban on them would be purposeless and would increase crime. Anyway,

Crime Rates:
My opponent stated that in the 1990's, the number of guns went down, as did the crime rates. I beg to differ, and you can check out the National Safety Council's study to be sure, that the number of guns actually increased by roughly 40 million, and the murder rate decreased 40%.[1] Also, in every single case in which guns have been banned, crime has risen. You cannot give me a single definite example against that. You may give me a case where guns have been banned and give me the low amount of crime afterwards, but you will avoid the amount of crime before the ban. Because in every case, crime goes up.[2] Again, I will not deny that guns make it easier to commit crimes. But with so many in the system, the only ones that will be affected by a ban are the legal ones owned by law abiding citizens. My opponent also gave the example of suicide, and that is irrelevant because he did not give me a source demonstrating his argument, nor has he likely ever considered actually killing himself. He does not know what it is like. And neither do I, but if someone wants to take their own life, it is their right to do so. Lastly, there are many painless ways to kill oneself. i.e. helium asphyxiation.

Sitting duck argument:
My opponent believes that most guns used in crimes are legally owned, and thus would be affected by gun bans. But the facts show that the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally, off black market sources.[3] These guns are not affected by gun bans. The only guns that are affected by gun bans are those owned by law-abiding citizens, and so the citizens relinquish their weapons. The criminals do not. Even if criminals did obtain most weapons legally, they would likely not turn them in. [4]

Criminals only following certain laws:

If a criminal is taking his chances by breaking such a law as murder, which is a very severe crime, what is the incentive for him not to break such a trivial law as a gun ban. If one is willing to kill another human being, he is more than willing to break one more little law in the process. Again, this is not a fact, it is human psychology, and in my opinion, is quite simple to understand.

Self-defense: Civilians use guns to defend themselves 2.5 million times a year. More than 80 times as often to defend lives than to take them in aggression.[5] Smaller numbers are based on the numbers of incidents in which the assailant was shot and/or killed. In the majority of these cases, the mere brandishing of a weapon is sufficient to deter an attack.[6]

Guns vs. Drugs.

I do not consider guns and drugs to be physically similar. They are similar in that they are both simple, common, cheap goods that are coveted by criminals. Also, they behave the same way when banned. When we banned alcohol, crime went up and illegal drinking went up.[7] When we banned cocaine, for example, crime went up and there are still huge amounts of illegal cocaine on the streets. Guns are simple pieces of metal, and it is unfeasible to expect that criminals will comply with this gun ban, as criminals have not complied with the bans on drugs, so why would they turn in their guns? The only way to protect people from these criminals, is not to take away their means of protection. It is to allow them that means of protection.

Police officers:

My point is not that police officers should not have guns. My point is that if police can protect people and stop crimes with guns, then civilians should be allowed the ability to protect people and stop crimes with guns when the police are not around, because the police cannot always be around.

Mass shootings:

The monsters that perform these horrible acts routinely plan out their crimes well in advance.[8] It is easy to get an illegal gun in that amount of time. I am for background checks to try and stop these people from getting guns, but bans will not stop them. You assume that these people obey the law when they do these things. They don't. It is illegal for a mentally ill person to buy a gun, but they got them illegally. They stole them from a sane person who owned them legally, yes, but such a great amount of time to plan out these attacks allows them to obtain guns any number of ways. And my opponent has not refuted the fact that mass shooters routinely seek out gun free zones to commit their attacks. In fact, every mass shooting in the past 20 years with one exception, has occurred in a gun free zone.[9] This proves that armed civilians deter criminals. If places where guns are banned attract shooters, why make the united states a gun free zone? It will only increase crime.

Conclusion:

I have met the burden of proof, regardless of whether or not my opponent believes I did, and have provided irrefutable statistics, even refuting possible counter-arguments he may provide in his next round.

1.National Safety Council, Injury Facts (2000), p. 125.
2.http://people.duke.edu...
3.http://www.gunfacts.info...
4.http://www.gunfacts.info...
5.http://gunowners.org...
6.http://www.gunfacts.info...
7.http://www.albany.edu...
8.http://www.thedailybeast.com...
9.http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, however his argument is extremely bizarre and does not to add up logically. Con concedes that if there were no guns, there would be less gun crime. He is arguing that a legal ban on them would be purposeless and would increase crime. However, it should be obvious that this makes little to no sense and is self-contradicting. If he admits that no guns would decrease crime, then this would seem to indicate prima facie that harsher bans need to be in place in order to get the level of guns down to a complete minimum. The idea that banning a brutal killing machine would increase crime is just absolutely outrageous.

Crime Rates

Con argues that even though the crime rates have went down over the past few decades, the amount of guns actually increased by 40 million. However, this is it outdated, as the book sourced by Con is from the year 2000 (the source I posted was more updated). Also, the amount of households who own guns decreased from 1973 to 2010. 30 years ago 50% of Americans owned guns, now only 32% do [1]. Since throughout the decades less households in America have been owning guns, and gun murder has decreased, this shows a clear correlation contrary to my opponent's argument. My opponent also then goes on to say that where there are gun bans, gun crimes increase in every occasion. However, this source he used to back up the claim does nothing of the sort. It simply shows a correlation between cherry picked instances where guns have been banned, and an increase in crime rates. This source he provided is titled "Ten Myths About Gun Control", so it should be clear that we may be dealing with a biased source. Regardless, if Con's argument does go through (which it does not), at best it would show that the common type of gun bans that are being implemented do not work; not a gun ban where guns are completely swept off of the streets and out of civilian hands (the type of ban I am advocating). Thus, this whole argument from Con is a non-sequitur[2] in the first place!

Another problem with this section from Con, is he completely ignored my argument comparing Canada to the United States. Canada's gun death rate is extremely low, with gun ownership being extremely low. The United State's gun death rate is extremely high, with gun ownership being extremely high. Another clear correlation.

As far as my suicide argument is concerned, my opponent claims that a "suicide bag" (bag containing helium asphyxiation) would be quick and easy as well as guns. I agree, this just means that there needs to be harsher laws with regards to helium asphyxiation. This does not indicate that not banning guns is the most reasonable choice.

Sitting Duck Argument

My opponent has committed the straw-man fallacy[3]. I never claimed that most gun crimes are committed with legally own guns, I just said that if this was the case Con's argument would be void. Con argues that most gun crimes are indeed done with illegal guns. Does this means that Con scores points here? I would say, no. This is because virtually all illegal guns were bought legally in the in the first place, then ended up in the black market[4]. If those guns weren't available to buy legally, then they would never end up in the black market to begin with. Thus, this self-evidently shows a clear need for some type of harsh gun reform.

Criminals Only Following Certain Laws

Here my opponent commits the special-pleading logical fallacy[5]. In the Crime Rate section, he accuses me of not backing up my argument pertaining to suicide with sources. However, it was not a fact I was presenting, it was just basic human psychology. Because it was unsourced Con looked at it as invalid. However, when he presents a case based on human psychology instead of statistical fact; magically it becomes acceptable. This fallacy is clear as day.

Con mentions that guns are used more in self-defense than in aggressive acts when it comes to civilians. However, as I have argued, most of the illegally owned guns criminals have were legally bought to begin with. This seems to shut Con's entire case down.

Guns vs. Drugs

Con claims that criminals will not comply with gun bans. However, they would have to. If there are no guns to legally own, then barely any guns would reach the black market. It is a statistical fact that most guns that are illegally owned, were legally bought[6]. This means that if no guns can be legally bought, barely any guns would reach the black market. I am advocating a full gun ban. I do not even believe people should be allowed to hunt for sport, as it is animal cruelty[7].

Police Officers

Con ignores my argument that most police deaths are due to guns. This answers the question as to why guns should not be legal to purchase to civilians, but remain in the hands of police officers. Even if most gun crimes are done with illegally owned guns, the guns were still most likely legally purchased.

Mass Shootings

My opponent argues that all the mass shootings in the past 20 years have been committed in gun free zones, and if there were civilians there with guns to defend themselves, then these mass shootings could have been prevented. This argument fails, because most of the mass shootings were done by people who purchased the guns legally. If the guns could not have been purchased, then these mass shootings would never happen in the first place. Of the 143 guns owned by the killers in mass shootings from 1982 - 2012, more than three quarters were obtained legally[8]. This shows a clear gun problem that needs to be solved by what I call a "clean-sweep" gun ban.

Conclusion

All of Con's arguments fail. He argues that that banning guns would not stop criminals from using guns, but fails to realize that it would. Criminals can only use the guns that are available, thus if no guns are available to purchase legally then barely any guns would reach the black market as I already proved. He argues that people are sitting ducks against evil people with guns. This just means we have to make sure no guns are available for the evil people to obtain. There were more problems, however I think the point has been made crystal clear.

As it stands, the resolution has been affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://www.theatlanticwire.com...
[2] http://www.princeton.edu...(logic).html
[3] http://www.nizkor.org...
[4] http://web.archive.org...
[5] http://www.nizkor.org...
[6] http://www.pbs.org...
[7] http://www.peta.org...
[8] http://www.motherjones.com...
Debate Round No. 3
paulbrevik

Con

My opponent seems to be misunderstanding my argument. He states it is bizarre, but it is quite sound. I apologize if I have phrased it in such a way as for it to be difficult to understand well. You see, my argument is that banning guns does NOT take them off the street. If you could simply remove every gun from the streets, that would decrease murder rates and possibly other crime also, but since there are so many guns in circulation already, along with the huge numbers of illegally manufactured or illegal guns, banning them legally will not, even under ideal circumstances, remove all of them. It will merely disarm the law abiding, and prevent them from being to defend themselves or deter crime with their presence. Statistics show that criminals are more frightened of running into an armed civilian than an armed police officer[1], and the reason is simple. An armed citizen will be more likely to try and kill the criminal. Versus a police officer, where they will try to take the criminal alive.

Crime Rates:

While my opponent's argument reasonably holds up in theory, in practice, such actions have always increased crime. In fact, not a single academic study has found a single case in which gun control in any form has been imposed, and crime rates have dropped.[2] In every single case, crime rates have gone up. Chicago, DC, England, Mexico, the list is endless. While my opponent may point to instances where there are strict gun laws and low gun crime, he ignores the fact that the rates of crime were even lower before the ban.[3] Regardless of how low the number of crimes is after the ban, it was in every case, lower still before the law was put into place. An even stronger example of this is how when Washington DC lifted one of its extremely strict gun laws, crime decreased. My opponent states that I have ignored Canada, but to address that, it has less gang related violence, and cultural issues have a part also in crime. But still, as with all cases, crime has increased in canada following its strict regulation. As for suicide, I believe that it is a person's right to end their own life if they so choose.

Sitting duck argument:
Yes, I was mistaken. I misread my opponent's argument and was led to believe that he stated that most crimes are committed with legal guns. And yes, if that was the case, my opponent's argument would beat mine. But the majority of guns used in crime are either illegally manufactured or imported, or stolen.[4] And I know my opponent will say that stolen guns would not exist because they were legal prior to the suggested ban. But with so many guns out there, it is impossible to collect every gun. Also, even if there are no guns to steal, this drives the substitution effect, which is a phenomenon which would increase the market for illegally imported or manufactured guns, until the black market has achieved its original size.[5] (Also, my opponent states that I have used a biased source, but it is likely less so than an anti-gun website for my opponent's fourth source) The criminals will not turn them in, so they will be the only ones armed. This puts criminals at the advantage, and crime increases.

Criminals only following certain laws:

Your psychology argument is valid and reasonable, and yes, you are correct, I should have provided you with a source for mine. But you see, I have actually personally met a felon convicted of robbery and he told me that many of his fellow inmates confirm this argument. I cannot give you a written source, but I did get my information from a first-hand person who experiences these things.

Self Defense:

Many instances of self defense with guns are instances in which the victim used a gun to defend from a knife, a bat, other blunt objects, or fists.[6] These are potentially lethal weapons, but are not very effective at self-defense. Without the gun that the victim had, many innocent people would die. The majority of these crimes are not committed with guns, but the ones that are, almost always take place with an illegal gun. And again, although my opponent is correct in theory, in England, for example, we banned handgun ownership, and heavily regulated long gun ownership, (effectively a ban), and gun crime went up 35%.[7] My opponent's argument clearly does not hold up in practice.

Guns vs. Drugs

Again, my opponent claims that most guns used in crimes begin legally. But that is the case in many countries. Then, guns were banned, and even without legal, registered guns, crime still went up.[8]
On an unrelated note, hunting animals is much less cruel than killing them in a slaughterhouse.

Police officers:
My argument about illegal gun markets shifting to accommodate a lack of guns to steal holds here too, and my argument is not about police officers' need for guns. It is a demonstration of the need for guns for self defense. Say a police officer was attacked with a knife or another weapon. What would he do? He'd reach for his gun. Because guns are an effective tool for self defense. Although yes, most police are killed by guns, that is a risk that exists in their work. They deal with criminals and their illegal guns.

Mass shootings:

Shooters routinely plan these attacks well in advance.[9] Such a window of time allows sufficient time to obtain an illegal gun, as was used in columbine, and a few other mass shootings.[10] So the characteristic that the most mass shootings share, is that virtually all of them take place in gun free zones.[11] These are places where citizens are not allowed to carry concealed handguns, and criminals avoid these places. If we allowed guns to be carried in more places, it has been proven to deter criminals.[12]

Lastly, an example. Say someone wanted to commit a horrible mass shooting. Guns are banned, so he decides to go get one off the black market, which has grown to import and manufacture illegal guns. He goes to some crowded place, and everywhere is now a gun free zone. He starts shooting. What would you like to see happen? There is only one way to stop him. An armed civilian.

Sources:
1. The Armed Criminal in America: A survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice
2. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr.
3. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr.
4. BATF, 1999
5. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr.
6. BATF, 1998
7. The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2003
8. The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2003
9.http://journalistsresource.org...#
10. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr.
11. http://www.cabinet.com... (this one is very informative)
12. http://www.cabinet.com...
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I'll concede the debate. This is my first debate on gun control, and I do not really have an opinion on it (I just thought it would be fun to argue). Even if guns were made illegal to buy, there are already too many guns in circulation. There would be no way to know whether my argument holds or not. Thus, Con convinced me that his argument was better than mine.
Debate Round No. 4
paulbrevik

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, and for his very interesting points regarding guns which I have never heard before, they were surprisingly difficult to argue against. But then again, I have never debated a complete ban :). Good debate.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by hemadri 1 year ago
hemadri
Nice good Thank you for Sharing your Article
http://www.freejobalertadda.com...
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
No, you said Con, but you probably meant pro.
Posted by paulbrevik 3 years ago
paulbrevik
JohnnyC, you are not correct. While the US has more crimes, the rate is lower than quite a few countries, many of which have strict gun control.
Here are the numbers:

http://www.jagranjosh.com...

but when we account for the population difference, the number of crimes per 1000 citizens, is higher in the UK for example, or germany, than in the US.
Posted by JohnnyC 3 years ago
JohnnyC
Con's second point is completely ridiculous. The USA has higher gun crime rates than any developed country where guns are illegal. I suggest that con should back up their argument with statistics.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
The sitting duck argument is nothing but an assertion. Guns almost always start out legally. Then go into places like the black market.

http://web.archive.org...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I said "Pro" but I meant "Con" in the last round. Oh well.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
paulbrevikRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: conceded.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
paulbrevikRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Pro for properly conceding.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
paulbrevikRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
paulbrevikRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 too have never debated this topic. I've held the casual opinion that the less guns, the better. Con's case was certainly convincing. Thank you pro for sticking your neck out their for this nugget of information. I did enjoy the exchange, and most notably Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
paulbrevikRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro who even wants us to vote Con...