The Instigator
Teucer32
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Challenge me.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,538 times Debate No: 8765
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

Teucer32

Con

I'll let the opponent choose.
rougeagent21

Pro

That is quite a dangerous move you are pulling. What if I said, "Resolved, Great Britain should kill all of its citizens?" I will go a bit easier. There are quite a few people who disagree with me on this issue.

Resolved: United States citizens should be allowed to own firearms

I am PRO, my opponent is CON. Con has set no parameters, so I will present my own.

1 - Both sides have the burden of proof

2 - New material may not be brought up in the final round

3 - Swearing shall result in the vote-bombing of the swearer's account :D

CITIZEN -
a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

SHOULD -
represents a moral or legal obligation or duty

OWN -
to have possession of

FIREARMS -
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant

Definitions are taken from dictionary.com

I will allow my opponent to begin the debate to give him more to work with. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Teucer32

Con

Rougeagent,

Thanks for accepting my debate. I, of course, understood the implications of my move. So thanks for going easy on me.

Although I'm happy to debate this issue, I will begin with a critique of the parameters set by my opponent.

Because of the nature of this debate (and the fact that I allowed my opponent to choose the topic), I believe I am able to argue against the aforementioned parameters.

I will, however, completely respect the resolution that my opponent has created. I would argue that everything else is up in the air.

1. BURDEN OF PROOF-My opponent has decided to put the burden of proof on both sides of the debate. OF COURSE! It just makes it that much harder for me, right? Wrong. Rougeagent has not considered the implications of this decision.

A. Setting the burden of proof for both sides makes for a bad debate. Consider the following: Both of us make arguments, but neither of us manage to "prove" these arguments. How can anyone decide a winner? People wouldn't vote. I think that a good debate should encourage lots of voting so as to find a greater consensus among our little debate community.

B. With the burden of proof on both sides, the debate will lend itself to hit-and-miss arguments. What I mean to say is that the debate will be more focused on defensive argumentation strategy. We've only got a set amount of room to debate with, so if we are stuck defending our positions rather than attacking our opponent's, the debate becomes rather boring.

C. Alternative: I suggest that we instead make the burden of proof rest upon the shoulders of the PRO in this debate. In doing so, we (A) gain a greater consensus as to who wins the debate, and (B) avoid making the debate boring and full of defensive argumentation.

2. NEW MATERIAL-I think I have a general idea of what my opponent means by this, but I'd like an explanation. Can you explain what you mean by new material? (New sources? New arguments?) I like the idea; I'd just like a better understanding before I agree to it completely.

3. SWEARING-I'd like an explanation on this one as well. It might be a problem...just kidding.

Alright, so I would appreciate it if my opponent would consider my arguments against the framework set for this debate.

Next, the definitions.

I will first argue broadly.

1. Definitions taken from dictionary.com aren't inherently valid.

A. As a money-making business, dictionary.com has not avoided the grips of the financial crisis. In fact, they've recently discovered a new money-making venture. Dictionary.com is greatly influenced by corporate America. When money is involved, we cannot take it as a valid source.

"If you go to Dictionary.com today or tomorrow, you'll notice a homepage takeover ad by Toyota featuring their hybrid Prius vehicle. It's part of a 2-day ad blitz campaign Toyota is conducting on the popular word lookup site, which sees 35 million visitors per month."

"Also, when people are learning a new word, they may associate it with the brand that's being advertised on the page. This is genius if you're Toyota and you want consumers to associate the word hybrid with their Prius. You can imagine how many brands will want to be visible to associate their product with the initial learning of a word."

(http://blog.searchenginewatch.com...)

B. Alternative-I believe a more credible source would be thefreedictionary.com. The website reads, "All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only." While this source can be used for informational purposes such as this debate, dictionary.com is generally used as a means of brainwashing people into blind consumerism.

Now I'll get specific.

1. CITIZEN-"A civilian" (thefreedictionary.com).

2. CIVILIAN-

A. "A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity" (thefreedictionary.com).

B. Notice that the definition of civilian notes exclusion. I would argue that this means a civilian is "one who is not an active member of the military, the police." (thefreedictionary.com)

3. SHOULD-"Used to express conditionality or contingency" (thefreedictionary.com).

4. OWN-"To have control over" (thefreedictionary.com).

5. FIREARMS-I think that the definition of this word is probably better to keep, as it probably had an effect on my opponent's choosing of this topic.

Once again, I believe all of my definitions should be taken over my opponent's seeing as they come from a much more credible source.

OK, so there are two scenarios in which I think everyone should vote for me:

A. YOU ACCEPT MY FRAMEWORK FOR THIS DEBATE-If my opponent accepts my framework for this debate given thus far, I will be attempting to show that United States citizens should not necessarily be allowed to own firearms. In fact, that's all I should have to do to win.

B. IF MY FRAMEWORK IS REJECTED-If my framework is rejected, I will still debate with my own definitions in order to prove that United States citizens should absolutely not be allowed to own firearms.

I think that's enough for this round. I'll reserve the right to present my in-depth analysis of both scenarios in the next round.

Again, thanks for accepting this debate, Rougeagent! It's an interesting topic.
rougeagent21

Pro

Hmm, we are debating how we are allowed to debate! However, I must voice my opinions here.

"A. Setting the burden of proof for both sides makes for a bad debate. Consider the following: Both of us make arguments, but neither of us manage to "prove" these arguments. How can anyone decide a winner? People wouldn't vote. I think that a good debate should encourage lots of voting so as to find a greater consensus among our little debate community."

Just because each of us has the burden of proof does not mean we are not allowed to attack the other's case. I must tear down your case WHILE strengthening my own. That is debating.

"B. With the burden of proof on both sides, the debate will lend itself to hit-and-miss arguments. What I mean to say is that the debate will be more focused on defensive argumentation strategy. We've only got a set amount of room to debate with, so if we are stuck defending our positions rather than attacking our opponent's, the debate becomes rather boring."

If, in your scenario, we were defending our own cases, that would mean they were being attacked. Therefore, the debate would be well-rounded, ad there is no problem. There is nothing wrong with that scenario. As for the character limit,(that my opponent set) that is where the skill comes in. Words must not be wasted, and the point should be clear. THAT is what the voters want to see.

"C. Alternative: I suggest that we instead make the burden of proof rest upon the shoulders of the PRO in this debate. In doing so, we (A) gain a greater consensus as to who wins the debate, and (B) avoid making the debate boring and full of defensive argumentation."

There are a few problems with this. We could just have easily reworded the resolution to: "Citizens should NOT be allowed to own firearms" and put the burden on you. If only one side has the burden of proof, then the debate becomes what my opponent says we should not allow it to be. If only I have the burden of proof, CON has no need for a case. Then I am only defending, and he is only attacking. That is clearly weighted for the negative side. (nice try though ;) If both sides share the burden, then it would be fairly weighted. In addition, it would make a mixture of attacking and defending, as opposed to my opponent's suggestion.

"2. NEW MATERIAL-I think I have a general idea of what my opponent means by this, but I'd like an explanation. Can you explain what you mean by new material? (New sources? New arguments?) I like the idea; I'd just like a better understanding before I agree to it completely."

I mean new arguments and evidence. It is unfair for a side to bring up new material in the last round when the other side cannot respond.

"3. SWEARING-I'd like an explanation on this one as well. It might be a problem...just kidding."

This was just supposed to be humorous.

I must also contend my opponent's definitions. He made a dangerous move by allowing me to pick the topic. He essentially just wanted to debate for the sake of debating. Now when someone forms a resolution, they form it based on certain definitions. By changing the definitions, my opponent also changes the resolution, and the debate itself. He asked me to make a resolution, but he now wants to mold it to his benefit. I cannot allow this. This is the resolution, and these are the definitions. They are unarguable, and cannot be changed. Even if I made up the definitions myself, they would still be valid. Please stick to the resolution and its meaning.

"B. IF MY FRAMEWORK IS REJECTED-If my framework is rejected, I will still debate with my own definitions in order to prove that United States citizens should absolutely not be allowed to own firearms."

If you debated with your definitions, you would have to ignore my case saying that it is irrelevant. Since I am PRO, and since you allowed me to make the resolution, we must debate this by my framework. If you do not want that in the future, do not allow your opponent to choose the resolution.

You have the freedom to debate this on a moral, legal, logical, or by any measurement that you want. You cannot change the framework though. With that said, I allow my opponent to present his case. May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 2
Teucer32

Con

Those are some interesting arguments. I think, however, that many of the arguments do not adequately address my concerns. I hope to convince everyone that my risky move was not a reckless one.

1. BURDEN OF PROOF:

A. "Just because each of us has the burden of proof does not mean we are not allowed to attack the other's case. I must tear down your case WHILE strengthening my own. That is debating."

--This argument pays no attention to what I was actually saying. My argument was that if neither of us are able to effectively prove our arguments, then nobody will vote. In order for us to have a good debate, we need to encourage more voting so as to gain a greater consensus of the true winner. I think this is a valid point, but it has pretty much been ignored.

B. "If, in your scenario, we were defending our own cases, that would mean they were being attacked. Therefore, the debate would be well-rounded, ad there is no problem. There is nothing wrong with that scenario. As for the character limit,(that my opponent set) that is where the skill comes in. Words must not be wasted, and the point should be clear. THAT is what the voters want to see."

--I think there are a few misconceptions here. Just because we are defending our cases, it doesn't mean that we are attacking each other's arguments and debating. Take my opponents first argument in this round for example: It had absolutely nothing to do with the actual point I was making. I think it makes the debate a lot less fun.

--Next, the character limit argument is not logical because, although I did set the limit, I set it for the most characters possible. And sure, I think skill plays a part in these debates. However, I think it is in the interest of this debate to make it as interesting and fun as possible.

C. Alternative: "There are a few problems with this. We could just have easily reworded the resolution to: "Citizens should NOT be allowed to own firearms" and put the burden on you. If only one side has the burden of proof, then the debate becomes what my opponent says we should not allow it to be. If only I have the burden of proof, CON has no need for a case. Then I am only defending, and he is only attacking. That is clearly weighted for the negative side. (nice try though ;) If both sides share the burden, then it would be fairly weighted. In addition, it would make a mixture of attacking and defending, as opposed to my opponent's suggestion."

--I think there is another huge misconception here. My alternative suggests that we put the burden of proof in the hands of the PRO in this debate because it effectively avoids the disadvantages of giving us both the burden of proof.

--Let me explain what I mean by offensive and defensive strategy in debate. I'm arguing that this debate should not give the burden of proof to both sides. All my opponent is doing is arguing defensively by saying my way is bad. Instead, he could be making this a better debate by advocating that his way is good! Keep this in mind! There have been no arguments as to why having the burden of proof on both sides is a good thing! This means that even if there is a minuscule reason that the burden of proof should be on the side of the PRO, then you should vote accordingly.

--I don't want this debate to get mixed up w/ this "attacking and defending" debate. I want a quality debate. I just don't think it can be attained with a burden of proof on both sides.

(POINTS 2 AND 3 [NEW MATERIAL AND SWEARING] ARE DROPPED--I LIKE THE IDEAS)

4. DEFINITIONS:

"I must also contend my opponent's definitions. He made a dangerous move by allowing me to pick the topic."

--Exactly. I allowed my opponent to pick the topic--and JUST that. My opponent is arguing that I can't change any of his definitions and that they are unarguable. Here is the problem with that assertion: No sources or reasons have been used. My opponent hasn't shown us any reason to think that I can't argue the definitions--there isn't a rule book! If my opponent wants to give some reasons why any definition will work, that would be one thing. However, there is absolutely no reason that I shouldn't be able to argue against the definitions. Because, of this, please look back to my initial arguments when evaluating this round.

--My next argument branches from my opponent's idea that definitions are not arguable. I would say that they definitely should be in order to have a good debate. Every debater comes into a debate w/ preconceived notions of what different words mean. We are influenced by a load of different things (e.g. dictionary.com argument from last round). Making it so we HAVE to perceive certain words in certain ways is not a good way to debate. Even the definitions of the actual words are subject to our own interpretations. In fact, I think debating the way my opponent wants to lends itself to a close-minded discussion. I would argue that good debates are between open-minded individuals who enjoy expressing new ideas. If we don't allow my definitions, we run the risk of ignorance playing a huge part in this debate.

--Also, I would like readers to take a look at my previous arguments concerning the validity of my opponent's definitions. Dictionary.com is not a valid source, and I have given reasons why.

"Please stick to the resolution and its meaning."

--I will stick to the resolution, but I think sticking to your meaning is nearly impossible and actually bad for this debate for reasons already listed.

5. FRAMEWORK:

"Since I am PRO, and since you allowed me to make the resolution, we must debate this by my framework. If you do not want that in the future, do not allow your opponent to choose the resolution."

--I think that this is incorrect. Although I did allow my opponent to create the resolution, he is somehow reasoning that we must also debate within his own framework. I think that two competing frameworks makes for a good debate. With that said, my scenarios should stand.

--Think about it this way. My opponent is essentially arguing that I should not be allowed to argue. This is a debate round! I think I should be able to argue anything I want. I have listed many reasons for this. It's all in the interest of a quality debate. Although I allowed my opponent to craft the resolution, I'm just critiquing my opponent's architecture of his framework. I'm making totally valid arguments, and my opponent is telling you not to listen to them (for no apparent reason).

"We could just have easily reworded the resolution to: "Citizens should NOT be allowed to own firearms" and put the burden on you."

--This is essentially what I have to do now under your own framework! If I am mistaken, please let me know. It becomes a completely different debate when we change these things around.

I'll stop here for now. I'd invite my opponent to make some on-case arguments whenever he pleases. As of now, I believe I should win this debate for the sole fact that I am the one interested in a good debate with open-minded discussion in place of ignorance.
rougeagent21

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent wants to debate "how we should debate the resolution" rather than the resolution itself. I have said my piece on interpretation, and will say no more. Since my opponent has twice declined to post an actual argument, I will do the honors. Guns should be legal to own in America for the following reasons:

==LEGALITY==

Just as the three main points of real-estate are location, location, and location, the three main points of gun rights are 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment, and 2nd amendment.

A - Citizens are given the right by our governing document in its second amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

B - Right to self-defense

United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1996)

"The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack -- particularly if a citizen shows specifically that organs of government charged with providing protection are unable or unwilling to do so."

I have not the room to post the case, so please consider this document as part of my case. It is essential to the debate.

http://www.secondamendment.net...

==CONCLUSION==

I have the duty and the right to protect myself, and those under my protection. If I fail to do so, I am failing as a citizen. In order to fulfill my duties and my rights, I must retain the right to own firearms. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Teucer32

Con

"Unfortunately, my opponent wants to debate "how we should debate the resolution" rather than the resolution itself."

--To win this debate, perhaps my opponent could have expressed why exactly this is a problem. I don't see how debating frameworks and interpretations are an automatic loss. Perhaps my opponent could explain to me where these rules are coming from.

"Since my opponent has twice declined to post an actual argument, I will do the honors."

--It disappoints me that my opponent sees my two initial posts as lacking "an actual argument." I think this would have been a much better debate had we settled on a framework that created a better forum for debate. Instead, we are left with mere ignorance and a lackluster debate on the resolution.

--I've expressed my concerns with the parameters set in the initial round. They have gone completely untouched. They aren't an issue to my opponent. For this reason alone, I hope that those reading this debate will consider how much worse that made this debate. You can vote for me simply because I was interested in a good debate. If everyone is debating like Rougeagent, this site becomes a little bit less fun.

--EXTEND ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS FROM THE LAST ROUND.

Now, to address my opponent's last post (Sure...they are new arguments...but my opponent said may the best debater win):

"Guns should be legal to own in America for the following reasons..."

--Ummm...Is this the resolution? Now it's all about legality? I thought we were debating "Resolved: United States citizens should be allowed to own firearms." This really changes things up. New definitions come in play. This is where the character limit becomes a factor. No matter how skilled of a debater I am, changing the debate is an abusive tactic that makes the debate a lot less fun.

A. LEGALITY

1. "Citizens are given the right by our governing document in its second amendment."

--OK, so my opponent is saying that guns should be legal to own in America because...they have the right to? This doesn't even begin to prove the resolution. Saying that we should do things because we have the right to do something is pretty ridiculous. Just because I have the right to call for a prostitute in Nevada doesn't mean I "should".

--Would my opponent be an advocate of slavery?

"Fascinating Fact: The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights." (http://civilwar.bluegrass.net...)

P.S. If you are, that's a different debate.

--So basically, things change. I advocate that we should leave the guns to only military and police personnel. They are the ones who are trained to use them.

Here's what we should do: Just give everyone but military and police personnel squirt guns. That way, everyone would have guns and everyone would be happy. Think of it as being "separate but equal" or something like that. Wait...that was in the constitution at one point too, wasn't it?

2. "Right to self-defense"

"I have not the room to post the case, so please consider this document as part of my case. It is essential to the debate."

--LOL...SO I'm running out of space for my posts because of my opponent's abusive debate style, and, meanwhile, he is asking me to consider a full web-page of argumentation away from this site? Read the quote he posted that states the second amendment verbatim. If you look closely, the "security of a free state" comes right after "a well regulated Militia." It says absolutely nothing about everyone being able to defend themselves with guns. In fact, I would say that this effectively turns his case. I understand the importance of a well regulated militia. I think that they are the only ones who should be dealing with guns.

"I have the duty and the right to protect myself, and those under my protection. If I fail to do so, I am failing as a citizen. In order to fulfill my duties and my rights, I must retain the right to own firearms. Thank you."

--LOL...so people who aren't able to protect themselves fail as citizens? Maybe you wish that were true. Geez, it might actually be kinda nice. Unfortunately, we live in an era when people help each other when they can't fend for themselves--we don't just shoot people.

***CONCLUSION:

Alright, so this debate was alright. I'm happy that someone accepted it. I think it would have been much better if my opponent would have considered my arguments.

I think I win on two levels. First, my opponent is going to say that I'm bringing up new evidence and arguments. It's a valid point, but consider this: my opponent has, until now, decided to actually start debating the resolution. It's abusive and it makes this a terrible debate.

Next, I should win just because I have been in favor of an open-minded debate. This debate has just been full of dropped arguments by the PRO. For that reason alone, I should win this debate. So even if you don't like that I refuted his arguments in the final round, you have to consider all of the ones he dropped prior to it.

Interesting debate. Could have been better.
rougeagent21

Pro

This was a terrible debate. I am not sure where the confusion came from, but one or more parties disconnected on several levels. I am going to keep this last round short.

"To win this debate, perhaps my opponent could have expressed why exactly this is a problem. I don't see how debating frameworks and interpretations are an automatic loss. Perhaps my opponent could explain to me where these rules are coming from."

==I stated no rule regarding this, please do not misquote me. I was disappointed since there was no argument ABOUT THE RESOLUTION from the negative side FOR THREE ROUNDS. You have yet, and have now run out of time to post an argument.

"It disappoints me that my opponent sees my two initial posts as lacking "an actual argument." I think this would have been a much better debate had we settled on a framework that created a better forum for debate. Instead, we are left with mere ignorance and a lackluster debate on the resolution."

==If you want to debate on framework, make your own resolution about that. Had you had your way, we would still be arguing about how to argue. It is only lackluster because you have not affirmed your position.

"EXTEND ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS FROM THE LAST ROUND."

==If you want to call them arguments, then go ahead and extend them. They are irrelevant TO THE RESOLUTION.

"--Ummm...Is this the resolution? Now it's all about legality? I thought we were debating "Resolved: United States citizens should be allowed to own firearms." This really changes things up. New definitions come in play. This is where the character limit becomes a factor. No matter how skilled of a debater I am, changing the debate is an abusive tactic that makes the debate a lot less fun."

==I did not change the resolution, and I am not using abusive tactics. I am giving reasons to affirm the resolution. I am telling you A because B and C. That is called forming an argument.

"--OK, so my opponent is saying that guns should be legal to own in America because...they have the right to? This doesn't even begin to prove the resolution. Saying that we should do things because we have the right to do something is pretty ridiculous. Just because I have the right to call for a prostitute in Nevada doesn't mean I "should"."

==Apparently, my opponent values his safety as much as he values a prostitute from Nevada. If you are the same as he, vote for the negative side.

"Here's what we should do: Just give everyone but military and police personnel squirt guns. That way, everyone would have guns and everyone would be happy. Think of it as being "separate but equal" or something like that. Wait...that was in the constitution at one point too, wasn't it?"

==Ah, sarcasm. I for one would not be "happy" with a squirt gun. Can a squirt gun give me protection? Can it protect my family?

"--LOL...so people who aren't able to protect themselves fail as citizens? Maybe you wish that were true. Geez, it might actually be kinda nice. Unfortunately, we live in an era when people help each other when they can't fend for themselves--we don't just shoot people."

==My apologies, I fail to see the humor in this. You seriously do not understand what I am trying to say. I am not advocating "just shoot(ing) people" rather shooting as self-defense. If someone breaks into your house with a knife, and you have no gun, what are you going to do? Squirt him with your water pistol?

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to bring any of his own arguments to the table, and has barely touched mine. Ladies and gentlemen, consider the final scenario I mentioned. Consider yourself as the man or woman whose house was broken into. Consider a thief with a switchblade standing by your window. Consider yourself without protection. Do you want to be that person?
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
I think you guys are just making up random rules because you are sad that you don't like the framework. LOL.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Exactly; for example, I don't care about where the definitions come from; when I hear about citizens owning firearms, and I go to dictionary.com to get formal definitions, I don't think about a damn Prius. You spent several paragraphs arguing the legitimacy of thefreedictionary.com over dictionary.com; that was absolutely horrendous, I'm sorry to say.

Honestly, even if you won that, teucer, and you both debated via your framework, I still would have voted PRO just because he was actually arguing the topic that you allowed him to set up.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Yes, you have the burden of clash ON THE RESOLUTION! We were debating on "how to debate!"
Posted by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
Just because I didn't negate the resolution doesn't mean there wasn't clash. I went line-by-line on the framework of the debate. There was tons of clash. I guess you guys may not agree with me here, but even if I have this burden of clash, I think I met it.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I have to agree with rouge there; even if you don't have a burden of proof, you still have a burden of clash; you have to clash with the position that your opponent sets up, and actually negate the resolution; but you got so boiled down in technicalities and framework arguments, that you didn't even fit in actual argumentation of the topic; you skimmed over it, but that was as far as it went.

After all, if you allow your opponent to essentially set up the topic for you, I think the least you could do is actually debate it, not critique it.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
?!?!? YOU ARE NEGATIVE. The negative side NEGATES THE RESOLUTION. It is in your title.
Posted by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
That question means absolutely nothing in this debate. It's like asking me how do I NOT have to speak Spanish in this debate.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Well, you are the negative side. How do you NOT have to negate the resolution?
Posted by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
Cody: No. If you accept that I'm entirely right about the framework, I don't have the burden of proof. I gave several reasons to vote for me, and I explained why it wasn't necessary for me to negate the resolution. I was just interested in a good debate. There is no rule that states that I have to negate the resolution. They weren't even in my opponent's parameters.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Only one real reason I gave the vote to con: Obviously, PRO just wasn't debating the resolution. Even if we accept that he was entirely right about the framework... well, the resolution itself he left untouched.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by abney317 7 years ago
abney317
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by lacanrox 7 years ago
lacanrox
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ABNYU7 7 years ago
ABNYU7
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Teucer32rougeagent21Tied
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:07