The Instigator
Renegade184
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
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 2 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,083 times Debate No: 104413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

Renegade184

Con

The 2nd amendment was created to defend the people from government tyranny, because the founding fathers knew that if the citizenry is armed and ready to defend it's freedom tyranny could never succeed.

That is my quick opening statement.
DakotaKrafick

Pro

I accept. Thank you, Renegade184, for making this debate possible.

I'm left to assume the first round is for acceptance only since you labeled what you said as a "quick opening statement" rather than your actual argument, so I look forward to you expanding on that.

Before I pass the floor to you, I'd just like to make it clear that the burden of proof is entirely 100% on you to prove that gun control should remain as is. My role in this debate will simply be to debunk the soundness of whatever arguments you put forth; if I succeed in that, the debate goes to myself. If not, not. There is no need for me to present any arguments of my own for why gun control should be more strict or less strict.

Over to you.
Debate Round No. 1
Renegade184

Con

Yes, I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that it was for acceptance, I meant to make a sort of description when I posted that.

Onto the debate;

My stance is against gun control. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was not created so that the people would have the right to defend themselves from criminals, or to hunt but it was rather created to protect from tyrannical government. The single biggest threat to freedom is government, when you give the people the right to defend themselves from the government, tyranny can never succeed. The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment because they had experienced it, they knew what it was like to be threatened by the power of government tyranny. Many people fall under the common misconception that is, tyranny could never exist in a modernized society like this, well that's what the Europeans thought the same, then Hitler left 6 million Jews dead.
That is my opening statement.
DakotaKrafick

Pro

My opponent's stance is this: "Gun control in the USA should remain as is." And his reasoning is singular: Firearms in the hands of the people are useful in order to deter potential government tyranny, and, in the worst case scenario, to actively fight against their own government. This is, he states, why the founding fathers penned the Second Amendment in the first place. I don't disagree, but regardless, this argument fails for two reasons:

I. Then and Now

When the Second Amendment was first adopted in 1791, the United State's militia looked a lot different from its modern day counterpart. We once primarily used horses, cannonballs, and unreliable rifles with slow rates of fire. More than two centuries of technological advancements have astronomically improved our military to be a near-unstoppable force. I feel little compulsion to defend this one simple fact: Our 2017 military would destroy our 1791 military with minimal, if any, casualties. To me, this seems like an obviously uncontroversial statement. If my opponent for some reason disagrees, may he say so next round.

While I concede the guns available on the public market have improved dramatically over the last 220 years (they are more reliable, easier to use, and more efficient at killing), our military has not improved at the exact same rate; it has improved many times faster. In 1791, it was theoretically possible for citizens to win a war against their own government. I assert that today, that same feat is impossible.

My opponent must demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for American citizens, using legal firearms, to win a war against the American military. Keep in mind that the US Military currently has nearly 14,000 total aircraft, including transport aircraft, fighter aircraft, and attack helicopters, almost 6,000 combat tanks, and over 40,000 armored fighting land vehicles[1]. Citizens have precisely zero of all of those essential tools. Not to mention the military has a slew of missiles and bombs. Fighting a war against all of this and more, American citizens may as well arm themselves with water pistols.

II. The Absurd Logical Consequence

My opponent's syllogism, though not explicitly stated, is thus:

1. Whatever helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available.
2. Firearms help citizens deter government tyranny.
3. Therefore, firearms ought to be publicly available.

However, if we accept the first premise, which is the cornerstone of my opponent's logic, then we must accept that tanks and fighter jets and nuclear bombs ought to be publicly available to citizens as well. My opponent must either adopt this absurd opinion or demonstrate why tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs would not help deter government tyranny despite that they are necessary tools for each side of a conflict to possess (hence the USA Military possesses them in great numbers).

Source:
[1] https://www.globalfirepower.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Renegade184

Con

First off all, you state "While I concede the guns available on the public market have improved dramatically over the last 220 years (they are more reliable, easier to use, and more efficient at killing), our military has not improved at the exact same rate; it has improved many times faster. In 1791, it was theoretically possible for citizens to win a war against their own government. I assert that today, that same feat is impossible." well your assertion is just not true, smaller less notable revolutions have taken place against fully armed governments within only a few years of now, AND THEY SUCCEEDED!

"My opponent must either adopt this absurd opinion or demonstrate why tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs would not help deter government tyranny despite that they are necessary tools for each side of a conflict to possess" Just stop with your mutilated style of formal debate, YOU ARE NOT THE MODERATOR!, stop trying to form this debate to the point where it isn't a debate, your trying to have some sort of organizational authority!

"My opponent's syllogism, though not explicitly stated, is thus:

1. Whatever helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available.
2. Firearms help citizens deter government tyranny.
3. Therefore, firearms ought to be publicly available.

However, if we accept the first premise, which is the cornerstone of my opponent's logic, then we must accept that tanks and fighter jets and nuclear bombs ought to be publicly available to citizens as well." That's not true, your assumed view of my logic reversed would mean that any thing that can be used to stop government tyranny should be banned, cars, knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, pencils etc. I do not believe something like that or have it as the cornerstone of my logic because it is just an insane way to view the world.

It is possible that American citizens could stop the U.S. military, just look in the Middle East, where we are winning, but it is a war that is taking a lot of money and time, the U.S. military doesn't just bomb everything. If those citizens were all armed, trust me that war would be a lot harder.

"We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted." -Ronald Reagan
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, Renegade184, for your response. Before I continue my refutations, I'd first like to say your complaint that my style of debate is too formal or too organized or whatever you were trying to say is duly noted. However, I will continue to present my case in the manner I deem most efficient. It will be greatly appreciated if all your complaints in the future were more relevant to the topic at hand.

As a reminder, in my previous round I presented two reasons why my opponent's argument fails: 1) it is impossible for modern day American citizens, using legal firearms, to win a war against their own government; and 2) the same logic which my opponent employs to affirm the resolution can also be used to affirm other claims which are axiomatically false. Let's tackle each of these one at a time.

1. It is impossible for American citizens to win a war against their own government

My opponent raised no objection to the fact that the USA's 2017 militia is astronomically more powerful than its 1791 predecessor, naturally because it is irrefutable. He does, however, disagree that it would be impossible for us to win such a war, but the only defense given is a brief mentioning of revolutions in other countries, although he admits they were small and not notable, and he doesn't specifically cite a single one of them.

What an insane leap in inductive reasoning this is. He claims that because small revolutions have recently succeeded in other countries, a revolution could therefore succeed in America? That's like saying because I can leap 3 feet, I can therefore leap 3,000 feet. One cannot deduce that X is possible based merely on the fact that Y is proved to be possible when X is many times more difficult than Y.

It would make sense to say, "We can defeat the US's military; therefore, we can also defeat much smaller militaries of other countries." But the reverse makes no sense at all!

In 2016, the United States was by far the world leader in military spending with a 611 billion dollar budget. That's over two and a half times as much as the second leading country, China, which spent a mere $215 billion. Third place, Russia, spent less than $70 billion. [1]

Needless to say, my opponent must do much more to adequately demonstrate how American citizens could possibly win a war against their own juggernaut of a military, because as it stands his speculations seem to phenomenally underestimate the difference in military strength between the US and whatever anonymous countries he alluded to.

2. The cornerstone of my opponent's logic

My opponent takes exception to the syllogism I was kind enough to provide for him, saying it misrepresents his true beliefs. That may be so, but it does not misrepresent what he's said thus far in this debate. I did not assume his logic; I transformed it into an easily understood deductive argument.

His logic is this: firearms should be publicly available because they can help us win a war against our own government if the need arises. But you can't deduce a conclusion from one singular premise. That is, you can't say something like, "The dog is barking. Therefore, the mailman is near." A logical deduction requires at least two premises, and if we think carefully enough, we can figure out the missing premise here: "The dog only barks when it detects the presence of the mailman." This statement is necessarily implied by the argument itself, the conclusion of which would be unfortunately unwarranted if not for this second premise.

Similarly, my opponent's argument was originally missing a second premise as well, without which the conclusion cannot be logically justified. By making these two statements, 1) guns should be publicly available, because 2) guns would help us win a war against our government if need be, my opponent necessarily implied the statement "whatever helps us win a war against our government should be publicly available." By disagreeing with this premise, he is disagreeing with his own argument, as he's offered no alternative syllogism, no alternative way to validly reach the conclusion he wants us to reach.

I encourage him to present his own syllogism if he feels this one does not accurately represent his words; however, I feel strongly that it does and that I've proven it does.

Finally, I'd like to address his entirely inaccurate claim that the negation of the premise "Everything which helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available" is "Everything which helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be banned." For every statement, there exists its negation, which affirms the opposite; of a factual statement and its negation, one must be true and one must be false, not both and not neither. Logically, the negation of this first premise is "Not everything which helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available," which is a far cry from the incorrect answer my opponent produced.

We can clearly see that the negation I gave shares a particular relationship with the first premise, in that one must be true and the other false; my opponent's proposed negation does not share that same relationship with the first premise. His error in logic is akin to claiming the negation of "all bananas are yellow" is "all bananas are green." Neither of these are true. In reality, the negation is simply "not all bananas are yellow;" some are yellow, others are green, and others still are brown. How magical.

I also object that baseballs and pencils help citizens deter government tyranny, as my opponent implies, but that's barely here nor there.

Source:
[1] https://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Renegade184

Con

I'd like to start off by saying that the burden of proof is for the voters to decide, not you! Nobody ever gave you any power to decide what happens in this debate!

Addressing your foolish statement, " In 1791, it was theoretically possible for citizens to win a war against their own government. I assert that today, that same feat is impossible."


You obviously need to read over things a few times, because you said, "He does, however, disagree that it would be impossible for us to win such a war, but the only defense given is a brief mentioning of revolutions in other countries, although he admits they were small and not notable, and he doesn't specifically cite a single one of them." I never said they are not notable, I said explicitly, "smaller less notable revolutions have taken place against fully armed governments within only a few years of now" I said they were less notable as a comparison to the American revolution, I may not have cited one of them, but here are a few,


  • 2000–2005: The Second Intifada, a continuation of the First Intifada, between Palestinians and Israel.
  • 2000: The bloodless Bulldozer Revolution, first of the four colour revolutions (in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005), overthrows Slobodan Milošević's régime in Yugoslavia.
  • 2001: The 2001 Macedonia conflict.
  • 2001–present: The Taliban insurgency following the 2001 war in Afghanistan which overthrew Taliban rule.
  • 2001: The 2001 EDSA Revolution peacefully ousts Philippine PresidentJoseph Estrada after the collapse of his impeachmenttrial.
  • 2001: Supporters of Philippines former presidentJoseph Estrada violently and unsuccessfully stage a rally, so-called the EDSA Tres, in an attempt of returning him to power.
  • 2001: Cacerolazo in Argentina. Following mass riots and a period of civil unrest, popular protests oust the government and two additional interim presidents within months. December 2001 riots in Argentina
  • 2003: The Rose Revolution, second of the colour revolutions, displaces the president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, and calls new elections.
  • 2003–present: The Iraqi insurgency refers to the armed resistance by diverse groups within Iraq to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and to the establishment of a liberal democracy therein.
  • 2003–present: The Darfur rebellion led by the two major rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement, recruited primarily from the land-tilling Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups.
  • 2003–present: Conflict in the Niger Delta
  • 2004–present: The Shi'ite Uprising against the US-led occupation of Iraq.
  • 2004–2005: The Orange Revolution in Ukraine. After Viktor Yanukovych was declared the winner of the presidential elections people took to the streets in protest demanding new elections. This was the third colour revolution.
  • 2004: A failed attempt at popular colour-style revolution in Azerbaijan, led by the groups Yox! and Azadlig.
  • 2004: War in North-West Pakistan
  • 2004–present: The Naxalite insurgency in India, led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
  • 2004–2013: The Kivu Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • 2005: The Cedar Revolution, triggered by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, asks for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
  • 2005: The Tulip Revolution (a.k.a. Pink/Yellow Revolution) overthrows the President of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akayev, and set new elections. This is the fourth colour revolution.
  • 2005: Paraguayan People's Army insurgency
  • 2005: April 15 Intifada – Arab uprising in the Iranian province of Khuzestan.
  • 2006: 2006 democracy movement in Nepal.
  • 2006: The 2006 Oaxaca protests demanding the removal of Ulises Ruiz Ortiz, the governor of Oaxaca state in Mexico.
  • 2006–present: The Mexican Drug War.
  • 2007: The Lawyers' Movement in Pakistan emerged to restore a judge but eventually moved to rebel against the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf.
  • 2007–2015: The Civil war in Ingushetia
  • 2007–2009: The Second Tuareg Rebellion in Niger.
  • 2007: The Burmese anti-government protests, including the Saffron Revolution of Burmese Buddhist monks.
  • 2008: 2008 Armenian presidential election protests
  • 2008: 2008 Kashmir Unrest
  • 2008: A Shiite uprising in Basra.
  • 2008: Attacks in Lanao del Norte in the Philippines by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front led by Kumander Bravo and Umbrfa Kato.
  • 2008 Anti-austerity protests in Ireland
  • 2009: 2009 Iranian presidential election protests, leading to development of Iranian Green Movement
  • 2009: 2009 Bangladesh Rifles revolt took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh killing 57 army officers.
  • 2009–2011: A civil uprising popularly known as the Kitchenware Revolution brought down the Icelandic government after the collapse of the country's financial system in October 2008.
  • 2009: The 2009 Malagasy political crisis in the Madagascar
  • 2009: The Dongo conflict In the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • 2009–present: War in Somalia (2009–present)
  • 2009-2015: South Yemen insurgency
  • 2009: 2009 Boko Haram uprising
  • 2009–present: Insurgency in the North Caucasus

"What an insane leap in inductive reasoning this is. He claims that because small revolutions have recently succeeded in other countries, a revolution could therefore succeed in America? That's like saying because I can leap 3 feet, I can therefore leap 3,000 feet. One cannot deduce that X is possible based merely on the fact that Y is proved to be possible when X is many times more difficult than Y." You see, you are already going back on your word, you stated " In 1791, it was theoretically possible for citizens to win a war against their own government. I assert that today, that same feat is impossible." but now your argument has changed due to the fact that you were wrong, revolutions can succeed in modern day.

But again you'll go back to your same argument, that a revoution could never succeed in the United States because all the examples I listed were smaller revolutions and rebellions, but here I list large-scale revolutions that succeeded against militaries that were far more powerful than their citizens, like the United States';

  • January 1978 – February 1979: The Iranian Revolution
  • July 26, 1953 – January 1, 1959: The Cuban Revolution
  • 1949: The Chinese Revolution
  • 1908: Young Turk Revolution
  • 1917: The October Revolution, this resulted in the Russian Civil War (1917–1922) and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

Onto your claims on the cornerstone of my logic, you claimed this last round "His logic is this: firearms should be publicly available because they can help us win a war against our own government if the need arises."

Yes the U.S. Government is very powerful, the most powerful in the world, I am not saying that it is too powerful for the people to overthrow, but you musn't leave out the possibility of foreign invasion, I never said that I think the founding fathers put that in there only for the scenario that our own government would become tyrannical, but also the thought that a foreign force instated authority over the people.

On an ending note, I do not think that either of these scenarios will arise soon, but we must keep peace throught strenght.


"We live in a precarious world threatened by totalitarian forces who seek to subvert and destroy freedom. The peace we enjoy is maintained only by our strength and resolve, and it's our duty to fortify both." -Ronald Reagan

DakotaKrafick

Pro

I'm going to keep this short, as there's not much else that needs saying.

Let's look at my two rebuttals once more, keeping in mind that if just one of these is true then my opponent's argument is sufficiently debunked:

1. It's impossible for American citizens to win a war against their own government

My opponent has now provided us with a rather long list of relatively recent, successful revolutions in other countries. This list, which provides very few facts besides the names of countries, has taken up the bulk of his previous round. I stated earlier that my opponent must provide us with good reasons to believe that modern day American citizens, using legal firearms, can theoretically win a war against their own government. Instead, he's given us this list and I'm quite disappointed.

Again, these other countries are irrelevant. One CANNOT assert that X is possible based merely on the fact that Y is possible when X is many times more difficult than Y. This holds true even when you add that A, B, C, D, all the way through W are possible too, when all of those are also individually easier than X.

I would have liked to hear my opponent explain how citizens could effectively incapacitate the 14,000 military aircraft or the 6,000 combat tanks the US military currently has, or how they would combat potential nuclear bombs and high-tech military-grade missiles. Instead we got more errors in inductive reasoning. (Did the citizens in these revolutions have to fight against 6,000 combat tanks? Or 14,000 aircraft? Or anything even remotely comparable to the strength of the US military? Who knows? My opponent has left us in the dark on these facts.) The successes of the revolutions in my opponent's list prove nothing relevant to this debate. It is merely a list of the same error in logic repeated many times (that is, the logic which states that because a particular task can be accomplished, a much more difficult version of that same task can therefore also be accomplished). Unfortunately, even a list of 100 logically invalid arguments do not equal one good one.

Again, the USA spent 611 billion dollars in 2016 on its military, making it the world's number one leader in military spending, and not by a small margin either. In fact, the USA's military budget is larger than the world's second largest military budget combined with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth largest military budgets. [1]

The claim that it is possible for American citizens, using legal firearms, to win a war against their own government has never been sufficiently proven by my opponent, and therefore I assert that this rebuttal stands strong.

2. The cornerstone of my opponent's logic

My opponent does literally nothing new to defend himself against my rebuttal. He initially objected to the syllogism I provided, but has failed to offer any alternative way to deductively reach his conclusion. To review, my opponent's logic is this: "Firearms should be publicly available because they help deter potential government tyranny (and, he adds, potential foreign invasion)." Therefore, his deductive reasoning must form a syllogism such as this:

Premise 1: Firearms can help citizens deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion.
Premise 2: ?????????
Conclusion: Therefore, firearms should be publicly available.

There is literally no other possible premise we could plug into this argument to make it logically valid other than "Everything that can help citizens deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion should be publicly available." Without this second premise, the conclusion does not follow. It must be precisely this premise or it doesn't work. Note that similar premises, such as "Some things that can help citizens deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion should be publicly available," does not work; we'd be left wondering whether firearms belong in the "some things" category or not, or how we can decide. In other words, the syllogism itself would be logically invalid and leave us with more questions than answers.

Because my opponent failed to explain why this premise is not the hidden premise that was initially missing in his deductive reasoning, because he failed to produce any alternative premise or syllogism to substantiate his conclusion, and because he failed to give any explanation for why we cannot use his same logic to conclude tanks and nuclear bombs should be publicly available (despite that they can help deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion), I feel confident that this rebuttal stands strong as well.

Source:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
Magic, it's not the exact same RFD. You modeled it off of one of the parts of that RFD, and ignored a large amount of what went on with that same RFD. If you want to get into this, then stop posting RFDs you know don't meet the standards, and let's talk about it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
Whiteflame, it's the same vote that you've already said is ok in another debate, but somehow it's not ok here.
You're not being consistent at all.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MagicAintReal// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: YAY, no opt-in, so I can dishonestly quote and dock people for contradictory reasons, and the moderators can do nothing! So I'm docking Pro source points because while his quote was directly relevant, showed exactly what he was trying to show, and should be looked at objectively, the rest of his source is where I'll focus since neither debater mentioned it within the debate, no opt-in baby. The rest of his source goes on to tout the US being on top of the military-spending world which works against Pro because for the people to overthrow such a high-powered government they would need fewer gun regulations. Since both of Pro's sources showed how powerful the US's military is, this works against him because the resolution is about gun control and gun control would serve to reduce taking over such a powerful military. Pro's sources weren't sufficient to affirm gun control in fact they worked against him, even though Con didn't point this out, and I'm using my interpretation of the burden.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but even if the voter is solely awarding source points, there must be some assessment based on how they"re actually used. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Establishing who has the burden of proof is not sufficient reason to solely assess the sources of a single side.
************************************************************************
Posted by Renegade184 9 months ago
Renegade184
That last bit (&#3232;R55;&#3232;), I meant to put an emoji in there.
Posted by Renegade184 9 months ago
Renegade184
Addressing your point "However, if we accept the first premise, which is the cornerstone of my opponent's logic, then we must accept that tanks and fighter jets and nuclear bombs ought to be publicly available to citizens as well." Well the cornerstone of your logic seems to go against your point, " That's like saying because I can leap 3 feet, I can therefore leap 3,000 feet. One cannot deduce that X is possible based merely on the fact that Y is proved to be possible when X is many times more difficult than Y." (&#3232;R55;&#3232;)
Posted by Renegade184 9 months ago
Renegade184
I'm eager to see the voting results, that was a good debate DakotaKrafick.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 9 months ago
DakotaKrafick
Good debating with you, Renegade184. It was fun.
Posted by ILikePie5 9 months ago
ILikePie5
Pro is making a logical fallacy. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to PREVENT a tyrannical government. It looks like it's been successful so far, so why should we change the status quo? Do you think Americans will stand by while their fellow citizens are getting killed? No. So the government will have to kill everyone, in which case there wouldn't be anyone to govern. And gun control legislation as little to no solvency until the Second Amendment is repealed, which itself has zero solvency.
Posted by Renegade184 9 months ago
Renegade184
PLEASE TELL ME HOW WELL REGULATED MILITIA (Military) HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH GUN CONTROL!
Posted by BackCommander 9 months ago
BackCommander
Masterful, it's easy to tell where the burden of proof lies. Since Con is arguing that gun control should remain as is, or shouldn't be gotten rid of, Pro doesn't have the burden of proof. If Pro bases their debate on gun control needing to be increased, they adopt the burden of proof as well. As long as Pro is simply refuting Con's claims, they don't have the burden of proof. Burden of proof is usually set up by OP, regardless of who SHOULD have it, if they don't set it at the beginning of the debate, these sorts of conversations always pop up.

John_C_1812 Didn't get very far into your comment before seeing a glaring flaw in the foundation of your argument. The second amendment literally has the words "WELL REGULATED militia" in it. Regulations on guns are perfectly constitutional.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Renegade184DakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con in this debate, although I feel he has failed in explaining his side. Conduct and S/G are tied, and the two sources points go to Pro because I like his stats on the military and spending. Con used none. Convincing arguments is tied. The reason for this is because I don't agree that burden of proof was only on Con, I think it was shared in this case. Con brought up some good arguments that we need firearms to stop tyranny, but Pro shot back with the fact that this is too hard to rebel against (which I personally disagree with). Con only offered lists of mainly irrelevant rebellions. I would've like to have seen more variation in his arguments. However, Pro offered no arguments of his own to why we shouldn't have guns, so I can not award him Convincing Arguments. Good job to both Renegade184, and a slightly better job to DakotaKrafick.
Vote Placed by Political.Questioneer 9 months ago
Political.Questioneer
Renegade184DakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Although this topic is very interesting and debatable this particular debate is a bit lack luster. With the con having so much material to work with and only sticking to a plain attempt to refuting the Pro's rebuttal to the Cons opening argument. Then the con seems to have a fit that the Pro brought up a point about nuclear arsenal and vehicles of combat giving the pro the conduct point. The con came up with lots of data and statistics which was never backed up by a source although the Pro did use Wikipedia as one of their sources they also had 2 other liable sources giving pro the sources point. The argument point is awarded to Pro simply because Con failed to refute Pro's rebuttal by only sticking to one argument and that is essentially: Since other countries did it we could do it. When the Con could've easily claimed that the Pro side was assuming that the entire military would stay with the Government or that we may not be as powerful as perceived since we did lose in Vietnam.