The Instigator
hosslay
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Pro (for)
Winning
13 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...
LaL36
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 935 times Debate No: 28647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

hosslay

Con

Gun control is a direct attack on the 2nd Amendment and the well being of American citizens. My opponent does not agree with this, he thinks that gun control is a good thing and will help us as Americans to move forward. I am giving him a chance to explain his points and bring facts to the table. Good luck and may the truth be our best defence.
LaL36

Pro

First of all my opponent is wrong. Having gun control does not neccessarily contradict the second amendment. Putting limits on guns does not mean men cannot bear arms. For example, another law in America, and I think it is an amendment, is freedom of religion. If there was a religion of killing people, that religion should still be banned despite the amendment. Does that mean religion in general should be banned?Absolutely not it doesn't even contradict freedom of religion. Rather, it is clear that it has resulted in killing, therefore there should be limits to religion but it should not be completely removed. Same case here. Unfortunately, just like the second amendment says men is allowed to bear arms, that has resulted in a killing of children in Sandy Hook Elementary. Now, something has to be done. There needs to be limits of some sort in order to prevent this from happening. It is an undeniable FACT that it has resulted in deaths therefore, action must be taken. My opponents only argument is that gun control will be going against the second amendment. 1. I care about the lives of children more than the second amendment I hope the majority of people also do, so if saving children's lives, means taking away the second amendment I am taking that deal. (Bare in mind I already addressed that gun control doesn't contradict the second amendment I am just saying that isn't a good argument). 2. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is clear that we are in desperate times and we need desperate measures to save citizens and if that means getting rid of the second amendment, so be it. (Once again, not suggesting that gun control contradicts the second amendment).

Good luck to my opponent, I thank him for instigating the Debate and I wish him luck. I would also like to make clear that the following link is a votebomb by I opponent and as a result my debate is tied. If anyone reading this while this is still in the voting period please counter conduct, spelling, and sources in my opponents favor as I have pointed out numerous spelling mistakes and my current opponent disregarded them and gave no reason for voting for these factors. http://www.debate.org...

My opponent wrote "Con had more facts and pro had more opinion than fact"

This has nothing to with conduct, spelling and grammar, or sources, this is clearly a votebomb. When I confronted my opponent for this obvious votebomb. He responded "consider it a bonus" forfeiting that this was votebomb. I appologize for getting off topic.
Debate Round No. 1
hosslay

Con

My opponent is still upset that he has tied in his last debate. Lol. If it makes you feel better then I am sorry but you did lack alot of facts. Witch is why were her
e. You said that gun control does not contradict the 2nd amendment. But anytime you have to pick and poke at the 2nd amendment for gun control you are messing our rights and freedom. Today it might be limits on guns and tomorrow our rights might be gone forever because you want to tweak just a bit.

You also said that freedom of religion should have limits and controls. Did you know that evolution is a religion. Hitler lived by a code and a list. Hitler loved Darwin's theory evolution book. He read it all the time and lived by it. At the top of Hitler's list was arian (blond hair and blue eyes) at the bottom was Jews and then blacks. This is not the only reason he did what he did but is was the backbone to the whole movement. He believed that he and more like him were more evolved than Jews and blacks. Look it up if you don't believe me. Nothing ever happened to evolution. Its still here in the us today. So this is really just a blind argument and not a very good one.

You also said that the 2nd amendment has killed people. I don't if you have guns or not but I do and every time I walk in my house I never hear them jumping up and shooting. I am tierd of people saying that guns kill people. People kill
people point blank no argument.Did you hear about the guy in china that killed all those kids with a knife? Well I have a great idea and I think we should put knife laws into effect so you can go to the store get sliced tomatoes and carrots. Or the car wrecks that kill more kids each year than guns. You said that you love kids so why don't we outlaw cars or put really striker laws on them and lets all go bye horses
LaL36

Pro

"My opponent is still upset that he has tied in his last debate. Lol. If it makes you feel better then I am sorry but you did lack alot of facts. Witch is why were her"

First of all, atrocious spelling. My opponent should lose spelling and grammar for that. Second of all, I am now in the lead. Third of all lack of facts have nothing to do with conduct, spelling, or grammar and that is a FACT. That aside I move on to rebuttals.

"Today it might be limits on guns and tomorrow our rights might be gone forever because you want to tweak just a bit."

First of all, as my opponent has criticized me for not using facts, he is not using facts. You cannot prove that gun control will lead to taking away other rights. I am not suggesting to remove rights completely (I really don't know where my opponent got this conclusion) rather, as I said, I am just saying that there should be limits to gun control.

"You also said that freedom of religion should have limits and controls. Did you know that evolution is a religion. Hitler lived by a code and a list. Hitler loved Darwin's theory evolution book. He read it all the time and lived by it. At the top of Hitler's list was arian (blond hair and blue eyes) at the bottom was Jews and then blacks. This is not the only reason he did what he did but is was the backbone to the whole movement. He believed that he and more like him were more evolved than Jews and blacks."

I was just stating an example and you should not analyze it that much. Anyway, your logic is screwed in this case because the difference is, hitler did not kill Jews and everybody else in the name of evolution. If he did than there needs to be limits on religion.

"Look it up if you don't believe me"

That's why you should state sources

"You also said that the 2nd amendment has killed people. I don't if you have guns or not but I do and every time I walk in my house I never hear them jumping up and shooting."

It doesn't matter if you don't use it for violence and even the majority of people don't kill innocents with guns. It is still an undeniable FACT that gun rights have killed innocent people and my source is the sandy hook elementary shooting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"I am tierd of people saying that guns kill people. People kill people point blank no argument"

Once again another example of bad spelling and grammar. Obviously guns can't kill because they are not living but many killings, including in sandy hook elementary, are used with guns. It doesn't matter if there are other means of killing, it is still an undeniable FACT that guns have contributed to murder.

"Did you hear about the guy in china that killed all those kids with a knife? Well I have a great idea and I think we should put knife laws into effect so you can go to the store get sliced tomatoes and carrots..

First of all refer to what I said above. Second of all, knifes do other things aside from killing as you said, slicing tomatoes and carrots and a lot less killings have occurred with knives. Third of all my opponent has not stated the source about the China killing (not denying that it happened, just saying).

"Or the car wrecks that kill more kids each year than guns."

You can once again refer to what I said above. Second of all, cars have benefits that guns don't have like it is the main way of transportation. Third of all, my opponent has not stated an iota of evidence supporting his claim. In 2011 there 12,664 murders. Out of those kills 8,583 were caused by guns.
In England, where there is gun control, there were only 550 kills. Although my opponent is correct that cars kill more than guns, my opponent neglects to mention that cars are much easier to acquire and many deaths occur from drunk driving and negligence of pedestrians and drivers. While drunk driving is ilegal, It is hard to regulate which is why it is still occurring. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk...

"You said that you love kids so why don't we outlaw cars or put really striker laws on them and lets all go bye horses"

No period by my opponent, another example of bad spelling and grammar. Also my opponent is sarcastic and deserves to lose conduct for this. And I have already answered your question why we shouldn't but gun control is a much more legitimate solution than taking away cars. And also, action is being taken. Have you not seen drunk driving commercials. http://m.youtube.com...

http://m.youtube.com...

It is clear that action is being taken.

I thank my opponent for taking the time to response and I await for his.
Debate Round No. 2
hosslay

Con

hosslay forfeited this round.
LaL36

Pro

My opponent directly challenges me and forfeits. Wow. I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
hosslay

Con

hosslay forfeited this round.
LaL36

Pro

Wow this is funny. Read the comments my opponent said to me in the other debate and how confident he was that he would win and he decides to forfeit. I thank my opponent for partially debating and I thank the voters for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
hosslayLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
hosslayLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.