The Instigator
Forever23
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,981 times Debate No: 84453
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

Forever23

Con

R1- Acceptance
R2- Arguments
R3- Refutations
R4- Conclusion

I look forward to a great debate
Lexus

Pro

Hello, I hope to have a great debate on this subject. Fair warning, my arguments may be of psychanalytic origins, so I'd suggest reading some introductory Lacanian literature (if you have access, Zizek's book on how to read Lacan is a great one, otherwise you can check out this source: http://web.uvic.ca...).

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about something so significant as the right to have a gun, something I heavily criticise in the modern world.
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Con

The opposition does not want guns to be completely banned, so the following is our plan:

1. Make ths use of guns much more regulated. Instead of no gun laws, we could regulate gun rights.

2. In order to make guns more safe, we can give people who want guns "tests". Before they can purchase a gun, the person must prove that they are trustworthy. That will me done by a series of steps which will include a psych evaluation, the reason to own a gun and a license.

3. If the person has passed these, he will be educated on how to prevent accidental homicides and make sure that he knows how to handle the gun properly.

Why Not Just Ban Guns? I will explain.

Contention #1- Banning Will Formulate A Black Market. Restricting Will Not.

[1]Black markets, also called shadow markets, come about when people want to exchange goods or services that are prohibited by governments. Black markets skew economic data, as transactions are unrecorded. Black markets also arise when people don't want to pay taxes on the transaction for legal or illegal goods or services. Some black markets exist simply because people don't realize there are laws they aren't following, such as bartering and not reporting the taxable value of the transaction, or hiring a regular housekeeper or babysitter, but failing to pay employment taxes.

The licensing restrictions that governments impose on numerous occupations cause some workers to enter the black market because they don't want or can't afford to invest the time and money to obtain required licenses. For example, in New York City, one must purchase a license called a medallion in order to legally operate a taxi business. These medallions cost more than $600,000, making them prohibitively expensive for most entrepreneurs. As a result, some people may choose to operate black-market taxis without a license - at least, until they are caught.


Making guns completely illegal will cause the black market to form. The bad men will still get their guns. The way to stop this however is by just implementing stricter policies for gun ownership. There will be much less need for a black market because the majority (the sane) will receive a gun legally. With this formation on guns, the black market would be smaller than one caused by a strict ban.

The black market will only form when majority- sane want something illegal. However, when the sane are able to get the guns, a black market will not form.

Contention #2- Gun bans have been attempted in other nations. They have not worked.

[2]The deadly shooting in San Bernardino happened in a state with some of the nation's toughest gun laws: California bars assault weapons, blocks the sale of large-capacity magazines and requires universal background checks for all gun purchases.

Authorities say they believe attackers Syed Rizwan Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik had legally obtained two handguns and that two rifles were also legally purchased in California. Federal officials say the attackers had large-capacity magazines that violate California law in their SUV.

Since the attack Wednesday at a social service center in Southern California, the state's strict laws and the apparent legal purchase of the weapons have set off a debate over the effectiveness of gun measures and whether getting tougher would help prevent more violence.

California had a full gun ban and that was a complete fail. Regulation- the answer key.To control guns properly would be to give them, but with restriction.

Lets look at some nations that did not ban guns. They placed logical restrictions and their crime rate did fall.

[3]

• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).

• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.

• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).

• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).

Contention #3- The Constitution and Its Contents

[4] The Second Amendment is the most important right, because the Second Amendment keeps the government from being able to impose tyranny. Also the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, without the government being able to take the right away. Last without the Second Amendment all the others are useless, it is a guarantee to the people that we have the right to bear arms, it keeps the government from taking a way our rights, because we can resist.

The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist. Stated in the Cuba Constitution, “When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution." This is what our Second amendment gives us the right to do—protect our government. With the second amendment we can fight tyranny, but without it our government could be over thrown.

Completely repealing this amendment will open doors for corruption and tyranny. The amendment was in place to protect us. A logical regulation will not result in a dramatical loss- just a safer society. A ban however, has certain risks that we can not take in order to safeguard our democracy.

The purpose of the Constitution:

[5] The Constitution:

  • Creates a government that puts the power in the hands of the people
  • Separates the powers of government into three branches: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch, which executes the laws; and the judicial branch, which interprets the laws
  • Sets up a system of checks and balances that ensures no one branch has too much power
  • Divides power between the states and the federal government
  • Describes the purposes and duties of the government
  • Defines the scope and limit of government power
  • Prescribes the system for electing representatives
  • Establishes the process for the document’s ratification and amendment
  • Outlines many rights and freedoms of the people

Dear judges, the propositions plan will be to edit the gun rights to make the society much more safer while protecting the citizens and letting people have guns- as long as they meet the logical requirements.

Contention #4- Guns are not a significant cause of death.

According to WHO (world health organization), there are 7.4 million deaths related to heart disease, 6.7 million deaths from stroke, and 1.5 million deaths from HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, gun deaths a year only amount to approximately 33,000 deaths according to the CDC. Also according to the CDC, approximately 34,000 people are killed in car wrecks.

You see these shokcing statistics. And yet, no one ever wants a ban on sex or cars. How are guns different?

Vote pro.

[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
[2] http://bigstory.ap.org...
[3] http://www.cnn.com...
[4] http://www.teenink.com...
[5] http://constitutioncenter.org...;

Lexus

Pro

Since my opponent talks about the United States constitution within her constructive case, it can be logically followed that we are talking about the United States of America when looking at the resolution of "should we ban guns?". And I infer that the resolution is talking about what we should or ought to do, so I will supply some analysis of the resolution if my opponent either doesn't talk about this point or accepts it as true (nothing harmful, just lets us be resolutionally-focused).

Before I begin, we need to deeply analyse the question of "why do we have guns in the modern era?" -- as this is what my case will be attacking (for if there is no reason to have guns, a ban would be a logical consequence of thought!).

I believe that Adam Hall had said it best in The Quiller Memorandum [10]:
  • A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting ...
Jacques Lacan has done an enormous volume of work on the idea of the symbollic and the fantasy in his study of psychoanalysis of numerous patients. He finds that the phallus is a signifier of a lack of something, as well as a signifier of the difference of the sexes. (Quick note here, he talks of the phallus, not the penis; there is a difference between the organ and its symbolic representation within the analysable patient ... Lacan says 'phallus' for the symbolic representation, whereas Adam Hall had said 'penis' for both the organ and the symbolic representation -- this is just a difference of notation, I will be using Lacan's for this debate).

So far, we have seen that the gun exists as a rudimentary replacement for the male phallus in the current culture of 'gun culture' within the US - any hopes of banning guns are quickly dismissed, for a ban on guns would be the castration of the male's obsession with his phallus. This fear of castration is actually stemmed from a fear of the father [1] and his authority over the son - the 'castration complex', as Lacan calls it, is the acceptance of the father's authority and the authority of the Symbolic Order (as opposed to the Real or Imaginary Orders).

Thus, my first contention: guns are patriarchal tools meant to oppress the child, and are used to suppress the Oedipal Complex of the son as a means of social repression.

Subpoint A. Patriarchy
It is quite simple to see that the guns are a symptom of the patriarchy. Look above at my note on the Lacanian idea of the Castration Complex, where this fear is actually stemmed from the fear of the Father and his power over the Symbolic Order. Patriarchy is defined simply as a form of community wherein the father is the head of power [2], so we can see that this fear further entrenches the familial and societal Father.

And, the impacts can be disastorous if we let the patriarchy go free -- massive, large-scale war [3], domestic violence [4], a crippling of democracy [4], and so on and so on (cue Slavoj wiping his nose).

Subpoint B. Suppression of Oedipus
(If you do not know the story of Oedipus, read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, it is useful)
If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue [5]. This is the exploitation of the child into the future by the Father and the Symbolic Order - it is no different than the patriarchy's violence on the child, nor is it different than slavery, nor is it different than class warfare - the only difference is that it occurs within the family's house.

When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen [5]. Let us ban guns and take the power from the Father to take away his exploitation of the Child through the excuse of Oedipus. Without doing so, we literally put into place a hierarchy that is the same as slavery - where the only difference, again, is where it is located: within the family's house.

And, fascism is the path to pure destruction -- all of humanity will cease to exist as we allow this fascism to go unchecked, as humanity would cease to exist had there been no ban on slavery in mass within the world [6].

Thus, breaking away from this Father-owned mindset is the only way to break out of the Oedipal suppression - it frees them from the territorialization of the psychoanalytic family and allows them to resist the dangers of fascism [7].

Now, my second contention: a ban on guns and gun rights is the elimination of private property rights -- a ban on private property rights is the only way that we can critique and attack capitalism directly.

The idea of valuing private property over the community as it exists -- valuing what is 'mine' over what is 'yours' instead of seeing that we should share all, is the root cause for capitalism. And, this idea and mindset is what makes life meaningless [8], as Kovel explains:
  • Capital produces egoic relations, which reproduce capital. The isolated selves of the capitalist order can choose to become personifications of capital, or ... have the role thrust upon them ... the almighty dollar interposes itself between all elements of experience
And, the value of individual human life becomes nothing under this 'mine' vs. 'yours' relationship -- the delineation between what is mine through private property lines is what causes individual human life to become worthless [9]. This ultimately will cause human extinction as we no longer have compassion for one another or care for one another when we have private property rights -- my plan solves as it is the first step to actual reform within the system that we are within, and my plan is opening the door for future reform that will happen if we allow for capitalism to be critiqued.

Thus, we must save human life and we must protect those that are oppressed by the family structure (Oedipus) and the Father. Affirm, because if you negate, you end the world.



Sources:
[1]. https://www.cla.purdue.edu...
[2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]. Warren and Cady, 1994, Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections
[4]. Ishkanian, 2007, En-gendering Civil Society and Democracy-Building: The Anti-Domestic Violence Campaign in Armenia, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Volume 14, Number 4, Winter 2007
[5]. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
[6]. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1980, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
[7]. Seem, translator, 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (introductory pages xx-xxi)
[8]. Joel Kovel, 2002, The Enemy of Nature
[9]. Paula Cerni, 2007, The Age of Consumer Capitalism
[10]. Ibid.
Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Con

Thank you Lexus for your speech.

In this debate round, I will be refuting the 2 contentions of my opponent.

To begin, my opponent states: guns are patriarchal tools meant to oppress the child, and are used to suppress the Oedipal Complex of the son as a means of social repression.

My opponent first established how the gun is a "replacement" for the penis and how the show superiority. And the guns make the father feel as the head of the family and therefore oppress the children.

However, I am failing to see why the father would oppress and threaten his own family with a gun? He would never threaten to kill his own child.

In addition, my opponent states how they can cause trouble in our society.

Actually, its quite the contrary, guns protect the citizens of US from an oppressive government. Let be once again extablish why the founding fathers added the second amendment to our Constitution.

[1] The Second Amendment is the most important right, because the Second Amendment keeps the government from being able to impose tyranny. Also the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, without the government being able to take the right away. Last without the Second Amendment all the others are useless, it is a guarantee to the people that we have the right to bear arms, it keeps the government from taking a way our rights, because we can resist.

The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist. Stated in the Cuba Constitution, “When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution." This is what our Second amendment gives us the right to do—protect our government. With the second amendment we can fight tyranny, but without it our government could be over thrown.

The opponents next contention was: a ban on guns and gun rights is the elimination of private property rights -- a ban on private property rights is the only way that we can critique and attack capitalism directly.

In this contention, I feel that my opponent is directly attacking the sheer ownership of property. So, under that point of view, it seems that my opponent is looking to abolish the ownership of property completely.


It really seems that my opponent is against ownership as a total. That includes something as simple as a pen and as expensive as a car.

However, we can not abolish private property as a total, since it will violate the human rights and harm the overall public. In addition, the abolition of guns only will not solve Capitalism.

Actually, the abolition of the gun rights will cause a black market to cause. Let me clarify,

[2]Black markets, also called shadow markets, come about when people want to exchange goods or services that are prohibited by governments. Black markets skew economic data, as transactions are unrecorded. Black markets also arise when people don't want to pay taxes on the transaction for legal or illegal goods or services. Some black markets exist simply because people don't realize there are laws they aren't following, such as bartering and not reporting the taxable value of the transaction, or hiring a regular housekeeper or babysitter, but failing to pay employment taxes.

The licensing restrictions that governments impose on numerous occupations cause some workers to enter the black market because they don't want or can't afford to invest the time and money to obtain required licenses. For example, in New York City, one must purchase a license called a medallion in order to legally operate a taxi business. These medallions cost more than $600,000, making them prohibitively expensive for most entrepreneurs. As a result, some people may choose to operate black-market taxis without a license - at least, until they are caught.

Lexus

Pro

Thanks for your time and your ideas -- they are valuable to my understanding of the world, even if I do not agree with them. In this round, I will be attacking my opponent's constructive case, not defending against attacks made against mine (see: round structure in R1).

A note on burdens: because my opponent uses the US as an example, this resolution and debate is focused on the US. Any outside data and so on isn't really relevant to the resolution or debate, so we should just discount it.

My opponent gives us this counterplan: to have gun regulation by means of liscencing, a psychiatric evaluation, and some other factors. If I disprove my opponent's contentions under this counterplan, the counterplan logically falls apart and cannot be defended. If anything falls out of order, then the counterplan is no longer a just means to seeing the resolution.

C1. Black market
My opponent gives us no reason that a black market is something that we need to defend ourselves from. She says that the 'bad men will still get their guns' but she provides us no way to accurately assess that statement -- she provides no means for us to actually realise this impact, so we can't say that all bad men will still get their guns within the US, just that their might be some. She says that a black market will form because we can't legally get guns in the US -- of course, I claim, it'd be incorrect for me to say that this is wrong.

If we shoud not ban something because a black market may form, should we not ban murder? There is an illegal black market for hitmen forming, and is increasing in power every day -- but is the harm of this blackmarket outweighing a lack of a ban on murder through legal means? Of course not! Murder is immoral so we need to ban it, even if a black market may arise - the same holds true for guns.

C2. Gun bans don't work
My opponent is basically conceding all of her ground throughout this contention. She says that we need to have a psychiatric evaluation of people and an extensive background check (this is her counterplan) ... when the exact same thing was instituted in California and the San Bernardino shooting happened as a result. Having any legal means of purchasing guns will lead to guns being purchased and people being passed by on the system (and Farook and Malik had legally obtained their weapons according to your very own source!). My opponent has no solvency at all in her counterplan because her contentions concede that the counterplan simply won't work.

C3. Constitution
Unless you have evidence that there is active tyranny and that this tyranny outweighs the patriarchy, Oedipus, and private ownership, we don't need to consider your contention at all. We aren't given any way to assess the timeframe or probability of tyranny, therefore in impact analysis we can't even consider it.

C4. Not significant
Murders are not significant in the world, yet we ban them. Slavery does not have a lot of death in the world today, does that mean that we ought not to ban it? The conclusion that you are deriving from the statistics is not even coherent -- okay, it may not be huge directly, that means we need not consider it at all? Then why do we consider your counterplan?

Further, this evidence only talks about the Earth, not the USA -- which my conceded framework says we need to look to the US and any outside data is irrelevant.

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
Forever23

Con

In this speech, I will be doing a series of counter refutations and then proceeding to summarize this debate.

To refute my opponents refutation to first contention, my opponent states how there is no issue with the black market for guns happening. The main problem here however, is that if we ban guns, we will only be taking firearms away from the law abiding citizens of America. The problem is that those who are looking to harm our nation will buy their guns in a black market and commit criminal acts. Those who abide the law will be the only ones to suffer from completely banning guns because they will be the ones who will not be able to defend themselves during a possible attack.

She refuted my second contention by stating that gun restricting have never worked in other places. Those include San Bernadino. However, in San Bernadino, guns were banned. There was a flat ban instead of the counterplan that the opposition is supporting. This counterplan however, has worked in so many other nations. That includes Germany, Finland, and France.

She refutes my point about the Constitution by saying how Oedipus and patriarchy are much more significant. However, in my speeches I have already shown how these two are not closely related to this topic at all. I have also established how the two issues do not even exist. Dictatorship however, is a possible issue that relates to every US citizen directly. The only way to protest to a dictatorship if we have one, is by allowing people to own guns, but with certain restrctions.

Lexus repudiates my last point by saying how just because guns are not a significant cause of death, we should still ban them. She asks, if they are not so significant, why do we consider a counterplan? Because a ban will not solve the issues with gun death overall. On the other hand, proper restrictions and educating the citizens will.

To summarize, my opponent has never abrogated by counter plan and cons case was much stronger.

Vote con.
Lexus

Pro

Again, thank you for your time. This round will be counter-rebuttals (defense) and summary/voter issues.

Defense
I claim two things in my constructive case - first, the existence of the gun as a penis-replacement and its oppression stemming from its existence, and second, the idea of any sorts of private ownership rights is inherently flawed.

My opponent simply doesn't understand my first contention whatsoever, and she doesn't address any of the individualistic impacts that I associate with my contention at all. She says that a Father wouldn't kill his child, but this oppression and suppression is much deeper than this - I give the example of how this oppression is the same as slavery, just within the house. Extend this metaphor -- a slave owner would never kill a slave, because the slave exists as a means for commodity and for wealth and status, so there is never this realised threat of death in the slave mind (even if there was some slave killing, it was not because of this oppression directly, but rather of the circumstances -- we can all agree that there are children that are killed by parents).

She doesn't even address my patriarchal contention at all. Guns are the phallus in Lacanian speak, so they are this male-oriented display of power over the individual. She cites the reasoning for having the second amendment, but why do I care about what some people in the 1700s say or think, for they also justified slavery and sexism -- colored people had close to no rights, women much the same -- how can we defend either that worldview or the worldview of 'the founding Fathers say so, so it must be of value' when this 'value' that we ascribe is inherently immoral!

Then, she says that abolishing private property as a total violates human rights and harms the overall public. How so -- she provides no warrants for anything, she baselessly asserts that it is True when we have no way to actually verify that this ist he overarching Truth of the situation. Further, she just meaninglessly rebuilds her black market contention that I simply don't care about -- it's irrelevant to the debate, cross-apply my example of murder being in the black market.

Voter issues
It should be clear to anyone observing this debate that the negative side of the resolution has not adequately: defended their own side of the resolution, nor have they actually rebutted against my case at all of any substance that we can evaluate this round based upon. My impacts are huge: war, marginalisation -- see a full list in one of the earlier rounds if you must, the human impacts are ginormous and far outweigh her obsession with the idea that a black market might form.

Her case hinged on a flawed counterplan that her evidence rode contrary to. Her own evidence says that this counterplan simply doesn't work (no matter how much she misrepresents her evidence, it still says this), yet she somehow finds meaning in this evidence to support her claim -- I do not fault her for not reading beyond the headlines, many are guilty of that in the modern world.

In the end, her counterplan failed and she didn't uphold the resolution -- my case was essentially conceded, so even if you don't agree with my stance on the issues, you have to vote for my side.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

So, I've already addressed my issues with Pro's case. It's not a favorite of mine.

http://www.debate.org...

What I will do is assess the extension on his case that came in this debate.

Honestly, the expansion starts to sound really Kritik-ish. It's clealry non-unique " property rights don't vanish the day that guns are banned. It's not a particularly bad point, in that it does explain why property and value commoditize people, but it's really not well explained. Why is ownership of commodities inherently causing a loss of human value? It's not clear. Human extinction is even less well explained because you don't examine why this is accelerating the rate at which we cause our own extinction, or even why extinction is imminent.

In this case, however, he's up against a different case, so let's see how good a job Con did.

The Counter Plan:

This actually isn't a bad plan, but you really have to be consistent with it. If you're going to hold up regulations as the perfect way to deal with the gun death problem, then a) you have to present me examples of these regulations working somewhere, and b) you shouldn't be disparaging those same examples. This becomes a problem later, particularly in your C2. Know what you're supporting.

C1:

Much like the rest of these contentions, I think Con's spending too much time quoting and not enough time analyzing what those quotes tell us. She says that black markets cause problems, but the extent of those problems is never really elucidated. There's some reduction in taxes, which is a nebulous impact, and some clear illegality, which is even more nebulous in terms of why we should care. The argument that a black market would be larger under a ban is well-taken, but again, I have no clue why that matters beyond exacerbating these already nebulous impacts.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

Where's the argument that the black market gives legal access mainly to criminals? Where's the argument that pushing law abiding citizens to seek guns on the black market turns them into criminals? There are plenty of reasons why a black market is bad, and none of htem are stated clearly here.

C2:

Again, too much quote, not enough analysis. I don't know why this matters. What you're essentially doing is telling me that people have acquired guns legally in states with high regulation, which is strange because what you're proposing is high regulation. You're not telling me why a ban wouldn't have prevented their access to these weapons, and you're not telling me where or how a full gun ban has been implemented anywhere. The statement that "California had a full gun ban" is just plain wrong. All of the examples you provide " Germany, Finland, Italy and France " don't absolutely ban guns, and you even go so far as to explain their exact circumstances with regards to gun regulation. Again, the fact that people could still have gotten guns under these systems makes me question YOUR case, not Con's.

C3:

Same problem. Con spends a lot of her space with quotes and then really fails to expand on it at all. The need to oppose tyranny is good and all, but you have to tell me why a) restrictions wouldn't result in the exact same problem, b) why tyranny is likely to happen, and c) why guns can adequately prevent or address such a tyranny. I don't see any of those points. All of the quotes are theoretical, explaining why the Second Amendment matters in a world where something terrible happens and the government tries to take over. The argument seems to function on the supposition that the Second Amendment is really important, but only explains that supposition in the most theoretical of worlds, not examining why corruption and tyranny happen in the absence of guns.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

C4:

This is solely mitigation, and not very good mitigation at that. The argument just states that it's a minimal impact by comparison to others, but it doens't matter if other issues are more important. There is clearly a substantial life gain benefit from removing guns, so it doesn't matter if addressing HIV/AIDS on a worldwide scale would matter more.

Rebuttals:

I really won't spend much time here because there's not much to analyze. Pro has by far the clearer impacts, even if his links are nearly non-existent. So all Con needs to do is hit the link structure, and then her own nebulous points will outweigh on the basis of likelihood.

That... doesn't happen. Con immediately mishandles all of Pro's points, failing to understand the metaphor of the father oppressing the child and how it factors into the debate. Responding to Pro's general view that guns harm society with the cross application of the second amendment point just fails to regard any of his points, and really just wastes everyone's time. The response to property rights gets closer, but this response has even fewer links than Pro's case, functioning solely as an assertion that property rights = human rights and loss of them is harmful to the overall public. Cross applying the black market point is yet another non sequitor waste of space.

Pro's responses are better.

She tells me that the impact's absent from the black market point, which I agree with. The point on murder just seems to treat banning murder as equal to banning guns. One's an action, and one's a commodity. They hardly seem comparable to me, though Con really makes no effort to delineate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 4)

Pro rightly turns Con's C2... which Con practically turned on herself anyway, so that's now a point for Pro. Pro also rightly explains that the tyranny impact is entirely theoretical and therefore has no real world impact. She also hits at Con's C4, explaining that the counter plan wouldn't matter either if this impact was really so minimal.

Counter-Rebuttals:

Not going to spend much time here. Nothing happens in this round. Neither debater adds to their arguments, and there's nothing of note said here at all. Admittedly, Pro really didn't have to add anything, but Con really should have used this round for more than she did. She's just as unresponsive to Pro's rebuttals as she was to her case.

Conclusion:

This all seems very straightforward. Con's getting no ground, anywhere. At best, she's getting some very nebulous solvency for problems that might, maybe, occur under Pro's plan. Pro's links to her various impacts may suck, but I need to know why they suck, and I'm not going to give those arguments to Con. So it's a simple comparison: I have meaty, realizable impacts from Pro, and I have little to nothing to take from Con. Hence, I vote Pro.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
tajshar, you fail to realise what my PA argument is about :p it's the same gun as used by the neg world, but the gun ALSO represents something :p I think that your vote was just against me because you hate me since I gave that argument in your own debate
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Sources, Conduct Spelling were tied.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Round 4 Pro

Pro is stating how Con conceded her patriarchal contention, which she did, and how she doesn"t explain how humans rights are abolished with private property.

Conclusion

So both debaters were arguing from a different point of view. Con was arguing with the common definition of gun, while Pro was arguing from a psychological point of view. I really think both debaters gave some good points, but I think Con"s arguments had more impact since she was able to provide more realistic impacts which were backed with sources.I think both slacked off a bit in the rebuttals, but Pro did do a better job refuting than Con, who sort of conceded some of the points. This was pretty close, but I have give the win the Con, since she was able to show that guns bans aren"t effective and they deprive citizens of the U.S from self defense, and that regulations would work better in countries like Germany, which Pro actually conceded.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Round 4 Con

Con explains how Law Abiding citizens lose their ability to defend themselves when guns are banned, so this shows that there is an issue. Regarding San Bernardinho, Con shows that assault rifles were banned so this shows how it helps her case. Pro basically conceded what happens in countries like Germany. Con shows how Oedipus and patriarchy are not even related, but she doesn"t really explain clearly that tyranny is more important than patriarchy. However, this is better than Pro, who didn"t really do anything either.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Round 3 Pro

Pro explains how Con doesn"t give reason as to why we need to defend ourselves from the black market. Pro makes an analogy to murder which was a bit strange. I"m not very convinced by this because murder is an act, while a gun is an object. Since this is Con"s job to refute this, I"ll se how this turns out. Pro says that Con conceded this, since this goes against what she said before. However this doesn"t show how Gun Bans works. If anything, Con"s case shows that it didn"t work at all.
This is an interesting rebuttal. Pro says Con needs to prove that tyranny outweighs patriarchy, so I"m interested to see what she says.
Pro basically destroys Con on this, Con really had no chance of winning this argument, since her argument goes beyond the U.S.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Round 3 Con

Con says that she fails to see why the father would threaten to child, but why not? Con doesn"t really explain it that much, so I think she should have expanded more on that. Con brings up the fact that that guns protect the people from a tyrannical government so this does create some impact since Pro suggested the opposite. Con also brings up how Pro"s stance indicates total abolishment of private property which violates human rights.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Forever23LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. This vote was made on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Forever23LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a vote from the Voter's union, please see comments.