The Instigator
Emhyr
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
ShrekPolls
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bullet Control

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 1 vote the winner is...
Emhyr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 78416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

Emhyr

Pro

Recently, I watched a Chris Rock skit about gun control. He jokingly proposed an idea, bullet control, that I found to actually be a legitimate solution to the gun problem in America. Anti-gun control activists claim that guns are used for self-defense and less guns equals more crime. If guns are only used for self-defense, then you don't need anymore than a couple of bullets (or in rare cases, a full chamber). Therefore, bullets should be priced at $5,000 a bullet. Guns are already cheap enough, so having expensive bullets will put an end to mass shootings. No longer would an unemployed bum be able to find the money for a gun and some cheap bullets. Imagine how many lives would be saved if a murderous person couldn't afford bullets or could only get hands on one. Now, you might say, "Since the bullets are so expensive, people needing bullets for self-defense won't be able to afford them." If the bullets are that expensive in the first place, then there would be few people you would need to defend yourself from because not many would be able to afford bullets. If someone tries to jump you with a baseball bat, chances are you'll be able to defend yourself better than if that same person was holding a gun. Also, you may say that hunting is ruined. Personally, I never found it appealing to kill innocent animals for fun. If your need to hunt friendly animals is incredibly strong, then get a bow and some arrows. Lastly, here is a website that links to a new study that shows more guns equals more crime: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
ShrekPolls

Con

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. If you Democrats somehow got this law passed, This would only make the Country fall apart even more..... First of all, There is without a doubt that Texas would secede, I live in Texas by the way. 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. 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. I hope you know that Bullet control is a very controversial decision that should NEVER EVER happen.
Debate Round No. 1
Emhyr

Pro

To start, your argument isn't even an argument, it's full of nonsense. Therefore, I'll break it down, sentence by sentence.

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.
ShrekPolls

Con

What I am saying is that, You are a fool, Im not even going to try to argue with you because your idiocy is pitiful. America is Falling apart, your president that you support, is trying to break us apart. Im not arguing with a stupid Democrat.
Debate Round No. 2
Emhyr

Pro

If you're not going to try to argue with me, according to your response, then I win by default.

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

Con

ShrekPolls forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
That might be sufficient if he'd just afforded you arguments and conduct. He made a point of giving you S&G and sources as well for no clear reason. The fact that gabep also chose to give other "reasoning" as to why he'd afforded sources, all of which was generic and none of which showed that he'd done more than a cursory reading of the debate, also functions against his vote. Besides, much as he did state that he was unwilling to argue further, that didn't function as a concession. It doesn't look good on him, and it hurts his case quite a bit, but it doesn't automatically grant you the debate.
Posted by Emhyr 1 year ago
Emhyr
Whiteflame - If you actually read the debate, you would see that the Con forfeited because he said he would not argue with me anymore. No reason to remove Gabep's vote when he includes that the Con forfeited, so it's an automatic win. In fact, if someone forfeits, there is no reason to add anything else because the forfeiter loses by default. Gabep added a bit more in while also metioning that Con forfeited.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: gadep/ Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro sweeps this one. Con insulted Pro and forfeited, so Pro gets conduct. Pro had better S/G because Con did not capitalize and punctuate correctly. Pro also made better arguments overall and was the only one to use sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter needs to explain the arguments points. Merely stating that "Pro sweeps this one" and that he "made better arguments overall" doesn't examine anything specific to the debate, and therefore cannot suffice for explaining arguments points. (2) This RFD doesn't contain any information specific to the debate, and could practically be written about any debate to justify point allocations. (3) S&G is insufficiently explained. A lack of capital letters and punctuation doesn't show that Con's arguments were very difficult to understand, which is the standard that voters must meet in order to allocate this point. (4) Sources is insufficiently explained. One side using sources while the other doesn't is not good enough " the voter must explain what it was about the sources Pro used that assisted his case, otherwise these points could be afforded merely for providing a dictionary definition.
******************************************************************************
Posted by Emhyr 1 year ago
Emhyr
SensibleRepublican - Where in the world do you get this hilariously fake information from? Do you read from satire sites and believe it's real? You're using nonsense and information with no proof to try and debate. That is not how debating works.

"Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, that is something called a fact.
"How are Democrats "blind trash"? All you did was write up some absolute BS lies that actually made me laugh at how ridiculous they sound.
"You never had a real argument in the first place, so your non-existent argument could not have been strengthened.
"How did he turn "this country into one of the most unrespected country in the world"?
"Obama has stated himself that he is a Christian, that's a fact. Like Gabep said, I've searched everywhere, and I couldn't find a single article that talked about his hatred of Christians. Also, I've seen almost all of his public appearances and I never saw him displaying hatred towards Christians.
"You're saying that Democrats are gullible for believing what you claim is a fake birth certificate that Obama forged. How are we gullible for believing facts and not whatever fiction and nonsense you concocted over there? I'm guessing if you picked up a Santa Claus book you would incorporate "facts" from that book too? If anything, you and ShrekPolls are gullible.
"You say I'm using government controlled Democratic sources. Here's FOX News (Republican) saying the same thing: http://www.foxnews.com...
"Everyone obviously still has freedom of speech and press. I've no idea what you're going on about.
"Obama is not "prepping America so that he can make it crumble." Where do you find this idiotic information from? Honestly, I want to know your sources (that you failed to list)?
"Our economy is still one of the best in the world and our army is the one of the largest and most advanced in the world.

Please, link your sources. You're saying nonsen
Posted by SensibleRepublican 1 year ago
SensibleRepublican
You haven't proven me wrong on all points, You have strengthened my argument that democrats are blind trash.
Posted by SensibleRepublican 1 year ago
SensibleRepublican
He wasn't born in Hawaii, he has turned this country in to one of the most unrespected country in the world. You are a insecure and blind democratic trash.
Posted by gabep 1 year ago
gabep
"there are so many things wrong with you I just cant start" - what, are you referring to yourself?
1. Obama IS Christian. Has he shown signs of hatred toward Christians? No!
2. *Facepalm* - he was born in Hawaii.
3. WE are gullible? Not the ones who are blindly following Trump?
4. Obama has not passed anything that would restrict free speech.
5. We are one of the most respected countries in the world. Our economy is getting much stronger, and some other countries in the world have just started to recover. Our army is not getting weaker. We are in development of a 5th generation fighter, the F-35.
6. I think this is an interesting debate.
I have proven you wrong on all points. Go reconsider your political ideology and join us.
Posted by SensibleRepublican 1 year ago
SensibleRepublican
ShrekPolls, I agree with you on everything, Emhyr, there are so many things wrong with you I just cant start. Do you not realize that Obama is a very bad person, He hates Christians and isn't American, that birth certificate convinced nobody but Gullible and blind democrats like you. Also, you think that the FBI only knows a few terrorists loose in America, and your sources are from Government controlled democratic websites. There is no such thing as freedom of speech and press anymore, Obama has denied us our rights, you might say im not on topic, but im saying that Obama is prepping America so that he can make it crumble, America is laughed at today, our economy is weak, our army is growing weaker, Leadership is corrupt, there are greater things to worry about than Bullet Control, so you shouldn't have even made this debate.
Posted by ShrekPolls 1 year ago
ShrekPolls
You are just making this to Hate on Republicans, You are blind. You think you are winning this debate while in reality, everyone is just looking at your Blind democrat excuses and they are just sighing and laughing at you, they pitying you.
Posted by Emhyr 1 year ago
Emhyr
Gabep - We already have background checks for guns; however, they don't seem to be working. Considering the fact that there are about 30 firearm homicides a day in the U.S. (source: http://www.cdc.gov...), background checks for guns aren't effective. Murderers are still able to get their hands on a firearm, and they all contribute to a firearm homicide total of around 11,000 deaths per year. Also, would you rather 30 firearm homicide deaths a day, or a price hike that would potentially save thousands of lives and deter would-be murderers? Personally, I would choose the latter.

And yes, unfortunately, ShrekPolls is either a troll or an uneducated arguer. If you ever want to debate, feel free to invite me, for you seem to be respectable and have an understanding of several talking points.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
EmhyrShrekPollsTied
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: 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.