The Instigator
Niall_McGee27
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Tashasays
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Tashasays
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 800 times Debate No: 85020
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Niall_McGee27

Con

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Also laws do not stop criminals. We should focus more on psychological therapy then gun control. A total ban is also absolutely garbage. Just look at Chicago.
Tashasays

Pro

This is my first debate. I would argue that guns do not make us safer. Countries with strict gun laws have statistically fewer gun related deaths and injuries.
Debate Round No. 1
Niall_McGee27

Con

What kind of statistics is there that says guns do not make us safer. It is unconstitutional to say that and frankly do it under the 2nd amendment
Tashasays

Pro

The evidence is overwhelming that the more guns a county has, the more deaths there will be as a direct result. A recent study that examined data from 27 developed countries found that more guns meant more deaths. The US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least. This is also true state to state. "In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state." They also found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...

http://www.theguardian.com...

These studies also found that other factors such as higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence.
Debate Round No. 2
Niall_McGee27

Con

Ok cars, planes, knives, people falling down the stairs kill people too. Should we ban them just because they kill. Look guns are a tool. They are used for self-defense, hunting etc. Why are we going to tell peolple not to have guns. Gun laws do not work, just take a look at the laws already placed in New York, Chicago, and LA. For example, if people in Paris had guns there would have been a lot less deaths. Guns are a necessity and if you want to turn into what the Hitler did to the Nazis, than you are correct. Leave the civilians unarmed and have the government go around to an unarmed society. Just like the Nazis. Blaming the gun is like blaming a pencil for all its mistakes.
Tashasays

Pro

Guns are not tools. Tools make our lives better. Guns can only inflict pain and death. If they were only used for self defense and hunting, there would not be a problem, but more often guns are used to hurt people. I have already proven that strict gun laws reduce gun related deaths and protect the public.
I agree that guns don't kill people; people kill people. Another way to think of it would be: people kill people, so why give them give them guns? Even police, who undergo more training and psychological testing than anyone, have used their guns to kill innocent people both intentionally and unintentionally.
I'm not going to address the comparison to Nazis because it's too ridiculous.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Pro due to him being the only one who used them in this debate and had used them to show a study that turned out to be a key point in this debate. Pro brings up this study that shows a corrilation between guns and low crime. Con's response was a trying to apply Pro's logic to other items, whether to ban a plane, car, or whatever simply because it could kill you. Pro attacks this by showing that people are generally violent and this can be solved if we take guns away from these violent people. The debate seems to move from "Gun Control" to "Gun Ban." I have to give the debate argument points to Pro on the grounds that not only did he argue on topic, but he refuted all of Con's points and more. Spelling and Grammar is tied since both users had poor grammar. Conduct is tied as both users were both well behaved. With a 5-0 score, I give this debate to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains source points. While arguments are somewhat thinly analyzed, they are specifically addressed and therefore sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheFlyingPham// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to pro, he is the only one that used sources, and showed a correlation with his sources that supported his argument. Even when his statistics had a counter argument, he was able to defend it.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does sufficiently explain sources, they need to directly address arguments given in the debate and explain how their outcomes contributed to the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is clearly sufficient, analyzing arguments given in the debate and determining the winner based on BoP. The reporter's personal disagreements with the vote don't suffice as a reason for removal.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: imabench// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: while con resorted to hypotheticals for his entire argument, pro actually backed his arguments with sources, so while arguments were not very decisive due to the low character limit in this debate, pro does at least earn source points since con used none

[*Reason for removal] The presence of sources alone does not justify allocating source points unless they have some meaningful contribution to the debate itself. Without showing that that's the case, this is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
(Add-on)

The Hitler example isn't even explained, and I don't see it as a voting issue. As for the "second amendment," Con doesn't really prove the unconstitutionality, and fails to actually establish that as a voting issue. Con must explain why it's it being in the Constitution is important to the debate, which they fail to do. Even with that considered, I vote Pro.
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

The burdens of persuasion are shared, since this is a normative resolution that involves weighing the costs and benefits of gun control policy. Pro must show why gun control is beneficial, and Con must present reasons for gun control not being beneficial. There's no clarification on what "gun control" means -- it's a vague term, and doesn't necessarily mean a ban on guns. So, to be clear, Con is arguing against any gun control, and Pro is arguing for some form of gun control.

Con loses this debate on failing to fulfill their burden. Pro argues that guns are correlated with more homicides, and presents research that shows that guns are likely the cause of this too. That's the harm Pro has to guns being present. Con barely even contests this harm -- all they say is "people kill people, not guns." But Pro shows that gun control will reduce the number of people killing people. Con's counterplan -- psychological therapy -- isn't explained, since Con doesn't demonstrate with evidence that it solves the harm. Con also doesn't have any offense. They rely on defense (e.g. guns don't kill people, people do). Con doesn't actually give a reason not to control guns.

Con seems to rely implicitly on some liberty-based FW, but doesn't actually articulate it within the debate. I can't make arguments for debaters. Pro actually has some clearly explained offense, which isn't rebutted by Con. Con doesn't have much offense at all, and relies on bare assertions and insufficiently explained arguments.

I vote Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: elijah452// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for removal*] The vote is sufficient, though the voter should couch what is convincing within the context of the debate and not merely on the basis of a general "who made more good arguments" framework. That context is essential to understanding any debate.

Note: I really feel the need to address this: guys, you really need to stop using the reporting system as a way to deal with voters you don't like. If the RFD itself is insufficient, it will be removed on that basis. If the RFD is not insufficient, it won't. Bias can result in insufficiency, but just because the two of you have a history does not mean that I'll be removing every vote each of you posts on the other's debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
Who had the most convincing arguments is always based on the resolution and whether it was affirmed or negated. Merely saying "well, one side argued better overall" doesn't tell me who had the arguments that resulted in a victory on the debate, which is what those points signify. Ignoring that context ignores the basis for why the debate is happening at all and any potential differences in burdens.
Posted by elijah452 10 months ago
elijah452
But I voted for "Who made more convincing arguments?" (Explaining the argument and exposing the weakness of the opponents argument)

PRO doesn't do a good job explaining his argument and virtually ignores his opponent arguments, it's as if he was monologuing to himself regardless of what CON wrote.

"that it's more of a slam at Pro than it is a statement of Con's success. "

It was a three round (or two) round debate. Virtually everything was tied except for CON having a more convincing argument.

You should see what Tashasay's counter vote (negatively voting on one of my debates)
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
That's nebulous. Saying someone is direct and to the point doesn't explain why their argument was more persuasive. If he's asking questions that matter, tell me why they matter instead of just saying that they do. Your RFD is almost certainly sufficient by this point, but I still get the impression that it's more of a slam at Pro than it is a statement of Con's success. Again, that can be fine if you also present the overall context of the debate and what it requires Pro to do, but I don't see that analysis.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 10 months ago
lannan13
Niall_McGee27TashasaysTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Pro due to him being the only one who used them in this debate and had used them to show a study that turned out to be a key point in this debate. Pro brings up this study that shows a corrilation between guns and low crime. Con's response was a trying to apply Pro's logic to other items, whether to ban a plane, car, or whatever simply because it could kill you. Pro attacks this by showing that people are generally violent and this can be solved if we take guns away from these violent people. The debate seems to move from "Gun Control" to "Gun Ban." I have to give the debate argument points to Pro on the grounds that not only did he argue on topic, but he refuted all of Con's points and more. Spelling and Grammar is tied since both users had poor grammar. Conduct is tied as both users were both well behaved. With a 5-0 score, I give this debate to Pro.
Vote Placed by elijah452 10 months ago
elijah452
Niall_McGee27TashasaysTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
Niall_McGee27TashasaysTied
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: RFD in comments