Debate Rounds (3)
Sentence 1: "Lets ignore the amount of big time criminals that would still be able to afford these bullets and have more successful robberies and being able to rob people with no fear of people shooting back."
Response 1: Firstly, there have been many bank robberies in the United States. I've seen a lot of those cases, and I've never seen a single robbery in which a citizen stopped the bank robber by shooting back. Bank robbers today don't have a fear of people shooting back because it never happens (except when the police come in time). Also, big time criminals, if there are any in the U.S., aren't going to be robbing a bank. The reason they became "big time" is because they don't get caught. Robbing a bank is too high profile for them and may result in being caught, therefore, they -- or their accomplices -- won't rob banks. They already make tons of money off of the "quiet" drug trade.
Sentence 2: If you Democrats somehow got this law passed, This would only make the Country fall apart even more.....
Response 2: How? This isn't an argument, this is just baseless speculation. Also, I wasn't aware that the country was falling apart in the first place. The U.S. is undisputedly a powerful and wealthy superpower.
Sentence 3: First of all, There is without a doubt that Texas would secede, I live in Texas by the way.
Reponse 3: Are you trolling me? This has to be a joke. There is no proof in any way Texas would secede. Like previously stated, this is baseless speculation.
Sentence 4: But lets ignore that, The southern part of the country would riot, This would cause EVEN MORE crime than before, people would be robbing gun stores, scavenging for bullets and the streets would be on fire, the government would fall, but, lets say this wont happen.
Response 4: Why would the southern part of the country riot? People all over the country like guns, not just the southern part. Also, this is more baseless speculation. You say people would rob gun stores for bullets, but stores won't carry many bullets. Since bullets are so expensive, bullet sales would severly drop, so stores would carry less bullets to avoid losing money due to a too large stock. Therefore, if people robbed bullet stores for bullets, they'll barely get any bullets and would most likely be caught and jailed. I doubt as well that they would rob a gun store without a gun and bullets. Lastly, asphalt isn't flammable and there is no possible way the government would topple because of a few isolated riots. This scenario would never happen and is nothing but speculation with no proof whatsoever.
Sentence 5: As we all know, Obama has opened the borders, probably letting thousands of ISIS members come in and plant their roots and wait for the moment to strike from inside, when they do come out, Millions of people wont be able to defend themselves, it would be mass slaughter.
Response 5: I barely know how to respond to this extremely idiotic statement. The keyword in that sentence is "probably", and the FBI says they're watching every suspected terrorist. Last time I checked, there were only 12 suspected terrorists who they lost track of, not thousands. Millions of lives won't be lost because when these suspected terrorists try to attack, they'll be stopped. For example, the FBI (along with local police in different areas) were able to arrest around a dozen individuals who were separately planning July 4th attacks (source: http://www.nbcnews.com...). I have no doubt that they thwart attacks like these every day.
Sentence 6: I hope you know that Bullet control is a very controversial decision that should NEVER EVER happen.
Response 6: How is it controversial if no one knows about my idea except you guys here? Also, it's YOUR opinion that bullet control should "never ever" happen. I strongly believe it should.
I hope in Round Two, you actually present a legitimate argument instead of the rambling you presented here. Based off your other unrelated debate, you're an Obama-hating idiot.
Also, you can't call conspiracy theories arguments. You were using nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense. America is not falling apart, and Barack Obama is not trying to break us apart. I'm guessing you're forfeiting because you ran out of conspiracy theories and nonsense to argue with.
To everyone who is reading this: Since my opponent has forfeited, I hope that you vote for me. Also, I respond to all comments. If you have a question, simply ask in the comments and I'll try to respond as soon as I can. Have a good one.
ShrekPolls forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct to Pro. Pro also wins because all of his arguments were conceded by Con when Con said the following - Im not even going to try to argue with you. - This is basically a forfeit and concession of all points on Con's behalf. Sources were only used by Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.