The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
kingwill
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

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 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,334 times Debate No: 22766
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

16kadams

Pro

I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear. If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.

If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.

If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:

"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling.

Rules:

No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF
No trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF
1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.
1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments.
__________________________

I have debated this a lot recently, but my opponents have FF'd. If needed it is no conduct or rule violation for an external source page: (http://www.debate.org...)

Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robbery

BOP even.

I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.

Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.

Good luck!!
kingwill

Con

"If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.

If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.

If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:

"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity."
http://en.wikipedia.org......

The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling."

My opponent is clearly opposed to semantics, a sentiment I share. He has, however, failed to define an important term in this round: "concealed carry handgun laws." He defined "concealed carry, or CCW" but neglected to discuss the "law" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate.

"No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF
No trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF
1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.
1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments."

I agree to abide by these rules.

"Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robbery

BOP even.

I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.

Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.

Good luck!!"

I also accept these definitions and stipulations, and wish my opponent the best of luck.

I will now discuss the proposition itself: that concealed carry handgun laws (as previously defined) reduce violent crime.

My opponent's support for this is rather brief and lacking in substance. I will take the time to refute it before continuing on to my case. His argument is as follows:

"I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear."

This argument is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first premise in his argument is that "the law does not reduce crime (A)". I entirely agree with this, as laws in and of themselves are powerless. It is the enforcement of the law, not the law itself, that determines the outcome or effect of said law. However, the conclusion, "the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws reduces violent crime (C)", does not follow from premise (A). This is because my opponent is assuming the second premise - that "concealed carry handgun laws will be successfully enforced (B)". This premise, unlike premise (A), is woefully false. It is naive to assume that just because concealed carry handgun laws are enacted, we will be able to enforce them by ensuring that nobody carries a handgun. Admittedly, lawful citizens who wish to carry a handgun will be refused the opportunity to do so, but the illegal gun trade affords criminals the opportunity to acquire weapons (including handguns) and proceed to carry them concealed. Because the illegal gun trade and the concealed carry of a small handgun are both impossible to enforce completely, the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws will not match up to their intent. While the intent is noble - to eradicate handguns from the streets completely - the enforcement of concealed carry laws cannot ensure that criminals do not carry concealed handguns.

I will now discuss my case, which is composed of 4 contentions:

Contention 1: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws increase violent crime.
I support this contention with historical, empirical data.

"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." [1]

"In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. ...the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban." [1]

"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. ...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect." [1]

Contention 2: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws are Unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution provides that "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." Clearly, by their very nature, concealed carry handgun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because these laws limit citizens' access to handguns. This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality.

Contention 3: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Protect the Innocent.
While one may think that concealed carry laws remove guns and thereby protect the innocent from harm, the opposite is true. As I discussed in my refutation of my opponent's argument, the enforcement gap essentially disarms the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals unaffected. The result is a world where armed criminals can shoot and kill unarmed and helpless citizens. This contention is supported by a poll done on felons in the United States:

"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"" [1]

As you can see, handguns can aid innocent people by giving them protection from armed (or unarmed) criminals.

Contention 4: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Weaken the United States.
We see this in two points:

Point A: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American accountability.
This nation was founded on the principle that government is evil and must be held in check by the people. By limiting access to handguns, concealed carry laws forfeit the people's ability to protect themselves from a potentially oppresive government.

Point B: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American strength.
The US has 3 million military personnel, half of which are active. But even this number pales in comparison to the over-300-million people in the United States. One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted was to protect America from foreign invasion and by restricting access to handguns, my opponent would decrease the capabilities of America's most reliable and most important defense: its people.

In light of this, I urge a CON ballot and eagerly await my opponent's response.

[1]"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 1/22/12. http://justfacts.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

**Note my opponent broke the acceptance rule**
**Note he argued my side.**

*Rebuttals*

C1: Conceal Carry Increases crime

If you actually read his argument, he is not even relating too conceal carry, rather he is arguing that gun control increases crime, I have no reason to think this helps him on a deterrence aspect. He concedes many of these gun control laws actually increased the crime rate..... So he actually concedes banning guns or controlling them is bad, his argument makes no sense also because it does not even utter a word of conceal carry.

C2: Conceal carry laws are unconstitutional

My opponent thinks conceal carry laws are unconstitutional, by saying: "This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality." Well, conceal carry does not ban guns... His argument is FALSE AND UNTRUE, if anything conceal carry increases the right to weapons, as it says your allowed to own guns and carry them hidden.... My opponents arguments on gun bans are not true... His case is a red herring!!

C3: Protect the innocent

I agree, the innocents can now fight back... Your arguing the wrong side.

C4: ???

Your arguing my side!!! They make us stronger, as first you say gun control and gun bans are bad, conceal carry is less control and more gun freedom!! You are arguing my side.

He then goes on guns are good, I agree I think I own over 20. Well guess what, you argued my side. You must argue guns are bad, I stated this: Conceal carry laws reduce crime, I am pro, I am arguing that they REDUCE CRIME. My statement on the NOT was not me saying I argue con. It was saying I dont think a piece of paper does nothing, rather the effects of the law do. Either concede as you argued MY SIDE, or argue that they have no effect on crime or increase it.

--Case--

Deterrence (use with argument below)

A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.

Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).

Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.

Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.

Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.

Empirical DATA

Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1]

He also draws preliminary conclusions in the introduction [note he used to be pro gun control if I can recall] using deterrence theory mentioned above. He finds a significant correlation that whenever a conceal carry law is passed, crime rates decrease significantly. In the third addition, the source I am using, he finds his original study said 7.7%, he says after new data and averages from the state and county level he saw a 10% decrease in murder. He also finds if one state/county passes a conceal carry law, the bordering states and counties also gain a crime decrease. He finds based on assaults per 100,000 people went from about 340 to under 320 on average [based on the neighbors passing the law]. [1] Now before I proceed with the empirical evidence, we must ask why does this occur, why does the county overs laws effect my crime rate? Border wars. When gangs fight they fight each other and attack other bystanders. If the bystanders are armed they are then scared to fight as the victim can always fight back [possibly] without warning if they had a conceal carry license. The famed Lott/mustard paper as well as my #1 source find in each of the studies find if each state passed a conceal carry law, it would prevent:

"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2]

Also two other studies confirm the lott results saying "there is a deterrent when passing conceal carry laws", and "the lott mustard data is not biased", and they acquire and replicate lotts results. [3] [4]

Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have mis-phrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.

The last question is accidental deaths, it decreases. the suicidal deaths rose by 2.67% after the law, and decreased other methods by 6%. Other statistics show an essential double of that, 4% increase for guns decrease 10% for other methods.



http://www.debate.org...
http://polyticks.com...


CONCLUSION:

Conceal carry laws reduce crime, my opponent actually ARGUED THE PRO SIDE, MY SIDE. Vote pro. Like really, with the resoluion and I am pro, I argue it reduces crime, you said it decreased it, therefore conceding. So, please, argue the other side.




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

Con

Unfortunately, it is clear that we agree.

Furthermore, it is obvious that this disagreement stems from a misinterpretation of the term "concealed carry handgun laws", which I defined in round 1, contrary to the definition that my opponent never provided, but was apparently assuming. For clafification, the definition that I provided, and which was not responded to, was that a concealed carry handgun law is "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." My reasoning for assuming my definition are as follows:

Without any "concealed carry handgun law", there would be no laws regarding concealed carry. And just as there are no laws regarding changing lightbulbs, everybody would be free to concealed carry (or change lightbulbs, whatever floats your boat) in absence of a "concealed carry law". Upon introducing such a law, the only way to go is downhill - in other words, if we can concealed carry with no limitations when there is no law, it follows that any "concealed carry handgun laws" would result in the opposite of that - restrictions on concealed carry.

In light of this reasoning, it is more sensible to label the PRO side as arguing the position that concealed carry laws (which restrict concealed carry) reduce violent crime, and to label the CON side as arguing the position that these laws increase violent crime. Thus, our mutual agreement should result in a CON vote.

Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate. Not only did it result in a debate with no clash, but by choosing a resolution that was vague and undefined, my opponent could choose to agree with whichever side I picked. In other words, since the resolution is so vague, had I argued that concealed carry restrictions decrease crime, he could have easily said "I agree with that!" This ambiguity is harmful to debate, and is another reason to vote CON.

In conclusion, I have established that the vagueness of the resolution and definitions provided (or not provided) by the instigator essentially render fruitful debate impossible. Additionally, if you define "concealed carry handgun laws" as I have, for the reasons I provided, our mutual agreement is agreement with the CON side. I therefore urge a CON ballot.

I wish my opponent the best of luck in creating concrete, precise resolutions in the future.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well.

One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data.
(http://www.debate.org...)
(http://www.debate.org...)

My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states:

"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime"

As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution.

Then my opponent states we have a mutual agreement, NO WE DON'T. I am arguing that it decreases crime, my opponent must not have reading comprehension, as I am labeled pro vs the resolution, which is clear what I mean.

I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source:
Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.

If I was arguing that it raised crime the book "more guns less crime" woudl not be a source.

Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime.

he states: "Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate."

No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule one

One of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/

CONCLUSION:

My opponent argued the wrong side. urge all voters to take a logical look at my past, no gun regulations, and the PRO resolution relation:

If I am pro and the resolution is "Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime", it is simple to assume I am arguing it lowers violent crime. My opponent has:

1. dropped my arguments
2. argued the wrong side
3. Persists I argue the wrong side, yet this indicates he has not read the resolution, and the pro resolution relationship is simple enough to hint I am arguing it lowers crime
4. Ruined this debate by his red herring on the who argued what, and refuses to read the resolution
5. Vote pro, as he is not making a case and arguing the wrong side, and to say is with full attitude: its pissing me off. He is essentially trolling a possibly good debate. If you wanna debate me see the open challenges section.
kingwill

Con

"My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well.

One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data."

1. I am a new member to this site (joined today). Thus, I am not familiar with my opponent, nor his parents.
2. My opponent should not be lax in wording resolutions in a way that people unfamiliar with his debate history do not understand them.

"My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states:

"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime""

You can see my logic in my round 2 post, where I compared "concealed carry handgun laws" to "lightbulb changing laws". Obviously, in the absence of concealed carry laws, we are free to concealed carry. So what happens when we introduce "concealed carry handgun laws"? Either nothing changes, or these laws place some kind of restriction on concealed carry. Throughout, my opponent has not even defined "concealed carry handgun laws" while I have, with the only logical definition presented thus far.

"As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution."

It is clear that my opponent is arguing for the resolution, but he is not PRO "conceal handguns reducing crime". He is PRO "conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime". Concealed handguns are a far cry from laws regarding concealed handguns, and so he is clearly arguing a different resolution.

"I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source:
Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.

If I was arguing that it raised crime the book "more guns less crime" woudl not be a source."

Unfortunately, he introduced this source after the first round, at a time when it is too late to be clarifying his true stance. In fact, I introduced my sources before he introduced his, which (by this "whoever clarifies what they're really arguing first wins" logic) means that I should win. But that's not how debate works. We need to know the bounds of the resolution before the instigator makes them up in the second round by using a certain source.

"Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime."

Yes, my opponent is logically arguing the PRO side of the resolution. I am not that stupid (nor am I new to debate, I have debated team policy debate in high school for several years). However, my opponent says "I am arguing that it [concealed carry handgun laws] decreases crime" without defining "it" in the first place. He fails to define concealed carry handgun laws, expects me to know what they are, and then rejects my reasonable definition in favor of his non-existant definition.

"he states: "Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate."

No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule one

One of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/"

My arguments are not semantics. I am merely stating that good definitions are neccessary for good debate, and that my opponent has failed to provide good definitions and has rejected the good definition that I provided.

Wrapping up, my opponent does not acknowledge that definitions are crucial to debate. Instead, he issues an incredibly vague and ambiguous resolution and clarifies his position in the second round, leaving me in the dark all the while. Vote against vague resolutions, vote against bad debate, and vote against the instigator.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

Let me show a few things.

"He [pro] defined "concealed carry, or CCW" but neglected to discuss the "law" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate." ~ My opponent

This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this.

Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate.

As paradigm lost said:

"Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued." [1]

With this information, any voter would vote pro. Vote PRO, extend arguments.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
kingwill

Con

"This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this."

Au contraire, definitions =/= semantics. Definitions are the framework for this debate, and essentially are what this debate has boiled down to. Furthermore, he says that "other sensible people agree", however, it appears that there are only 2 of these other people. This is not a significant number or a compelling reason to vote PRO.

"Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate."

And as stated, it was not clear at all. There are good laws and bad laws, restrictive laws and freeing laws. When he says "concealed carry handgun laws" he leaves it up in the air to decide what laws he is talking about, and what they do.

"As paradigm lost said:

"Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued.""

Again, just because there is another DDO user who agrees with the instigator, doesn't mean that "any voter would vote pro."

On the Definition:

Throughout, my opponent has not defined "concealed carry handgun laws". I provided a reasonable definition in the 1st round, which he rejected out of hand, labeling it as "semantics". He has dropped my logic and analysis that which demonstrates that any law pertaining to concealed carry must either (a) do nothing, or (b) impose restrictions on concealed carry. Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed.

In close, my opponent has accused me of derailing this debate, but he has in reality derailed it from the beginning by picking a resolution that is highly amiguous. He has then proceeded to drop my reasonable definition without proposing an alternative. I urge you to vote for my definition, vote against concealed carry laws and thus for concealed carry freedom, and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
16kadams

Pro

My opponent then breaks the rule of semantics, an auto FF. I therefore win.... He also derailed a good debate, and it was obvious to what I was arguing. Any voter can understand this. VOTE PRO.
kingwill

Con

The instigator is insisting that discussing definitions amounts to semantics, when defining terms is so core to debate that it is the first of the timeless Socratic questions. [1]

He continues to assert that it was clear what he was arguing, while providing no support for his definition of "concealed carry handgun laws" and dropping all my analysis. Please flow over my logic, in particular the following:

"Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed."

I urge you to vote for concealed carry and vote CON.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I made rules, and you bypassed them.
Posted by kingwill 4 years ago
kingwill
if using reasonable definitions is "breaking the rules", then i'm guilty.

i'm done with this.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
King, you broke the rules and (never knew this was possible) strawmanned the resolution...
Posted by kingwill 4 years ago
kingwill
it's not trolling, it's legitimate confusion. of all the resolutions, you had to pick the vaguest one possible.

if you want a real debate, try one of these:

"resolved: that the united states should allow unrestricted concealed carry"
"the right to concealed carry decreases violent crime"
"restrictions on concealed carry increase violent crime"

or even "concealed carry decreases violent crime" would be better than this crap about some vague "laws"...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
King, you trolled it.
Posted by kingwill 4 years ago
kingwill
"I wanted a real debate too."

yeah. so did i.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Yes I will
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Are you gonna remake it?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
@koopin

I wanted a real debate too.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Boo.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamskingwillTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued Pro. pro wins automatically.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
16kadamskingwillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped everything, trolls the debate, and virtually mis understood the vast majority of the pro's arguments.