The Instigator
BDPershing
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
gomergcc
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gun ban/Confiscation, 2nd Amendment Outdated.

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 1 vote the winner is...
BDPershing
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 778 times Debate No: 66843
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

BDPershing

Con

For years it seems there"s the idea that a gun ban should be done in America, and the 2nd Amendment is outdated. I fear that are rights are at risk with this foolish idea that we as a nation will be more secure without the people being armed. So ill tackle the first issue that is most commonly used to say the 2nd amendment is outdated, "The founders did not think of how fire arms will be in the 21st century". But you see the founders if they were referring to their time of weapons would have said something along the lines of "Flintlocks" or "Musket" instead they used a timeless term of "arms" which refers today as Firearms, weapon equipment. Others would argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to those in the militia well let"s look at this.
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.
Notice the sentence frame, starts with "well regulated militia", then as to clarify, "being necessary to the security of a free State""
This sentence structure shows the founders referring to the State to have a well regulated Militia present as a security measure. This was mainly due to the fact the constitution did not allow for a standing federal Army to be present during a time of peace. Therefore it was up to the state to provide for its defense in a way of a Militia as the State military army.
This continues with ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms""
At first look, it would seem to the common people this means the people of the militia to keep and bear arms. Yet this is not how the sentence structure is read, for inside this sentence structure it refers to two separate identities, one being the Organized Militia to protect the State, and The People to also have a right to keep and bear arms. "Keep" as in own, "bear" as in use, "Arms", which refers to weapons for this term does not limit to just "firearms".
""shall not be infringed."
This last part just secures that the Militia and the right of The People to own and use weapons.
Most arguments will point out that this was during a time when people"s security was not secured due to the land being tamed. Bandits and Indians raided peaceful colonist, now that we are a more civil and connected society, there is no need for the people to defend themselves. This may have played a part in the forming of this amendment, but in truth it dates to just before the revolution, 1774, the ban of importing of firearms and gunpowder. The same year till 1775 a confiscation of firearms and gunpowder was also acted upon by the Redcoats, seizing all public fire arms and gunpowder from the store houses. Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America at the time, even sent a request for an outright confiscation in New England. General Thomas Gage replied stating he himself would love to, but such an action would not go peacefully without force. Why would Britain wish to disarm the public even though it was a dangerous frontier? For that answer I would refer to this quote.
"To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens."

Got an idea who said this? The person is pretty famous was even nominated for Man of the Year by New York Times. Answer is Adolf Hitler; yes most opponents for gun control will state this is irreverent for its taking an extreme. I take this "extreme" for it works, and it is the embodiment that all mankind fears of. I"m sure people in Germany didn"t think it would happen, that the streets will be safe, Hitler would lead them to a golden age, and all will be right in the world. Hitler used the sweet words of security strategically and it landed him the seat of power in Germany where he can dictate the agenda he always wanted to act on since WWI. He continued with the sweet words of reducing crime and increasing security threw the registration of fire arms, the gun restrictions, and later gun confiscation of anyone who was not involved with the party and was a different race.
With this I will rest my case of why gun Ban should never be considered in America and I will continue with the reason why the 2nd amendment was even placed in the Bill of Rights.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Though the quote is sometimes considered to be US propaganda from the war the message is clear. Invading the mainland of the United States would be act of suicide, gun ownership of America is a deterrent for foreign nations to not attempt to invade, for not only does a foreign power have to deal with the army, but every able body of the nation as well. "Foreign and Domestic threats", another quote strait from the pledge are service men and women swear an oath to the constitution. We can understand where this "foreign" may come from, but domestic? What could threaten the constitution domestically? Well government, the same way people argue on how the 2nd amendment is "outdated" why would government not wish for an armed populous? Why did the King of Britain impose embargoes on gunpowder and fire arms being imported to the colonies? For a disarmed public who can"t effectively fight back can"t say anything to the government, they have no power over said government. Any protester threatened with death would eat the words they themselves preach. "Free Speech" in a government who disarmed the public is a regulated "free speech" only a shadow of the memory that once was called "free speech". Founders seen what a Tyrannical government would try to emplace to control the populous more effectively, so they established counter measures for the people to defend and take back what was established from them. If you don"t believe me how about a few quotes"

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

Sources:
http://goo.gl...
gomergcc

Pro


In many ways the 2nd Amendment is outdated. While I would concede that our founding fathers would not be in favor of an all out ban on all fire arms they would be in favor of a ban of some types of fire arms. I will do my best to take you back in to the mind set of our founding fathers, the meanings of some of the terms in the 1700's, and what our founding fathers could/couldn't envision for our day.



ARMS:



Today when we think of arms we just really think of fire arms. Our founding fathers thought of any weapon. When they said arms they were talking about everything from swords, cannons, fire arms, bombs, and anything else you can think of.



Militia:



When we think of a militia we think of something different than the founding fathers did. Remember that the second amendment states a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Let put this is context with Article 1, Section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution, “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”



That show that our founding fathers used militia not in the way we do. After the founding of our country state militias were formed. By 1792 it was required that all males 18 to 45 be enrolled in a state militia and own a fire arm and a bayonet.



Yes the founding fathers did want the right to every citizen to arm them selves: however they also wanted then properly trained on how to use them. The wanted the states to be able to rebel against the federal government, the cities to be able rebel against the state, and the people to be able to rebel against the city. They wanted it to be easy to win. They didn't want it to be like fighting the British. An armed citizenry with out proper training does not accomplish this.



What they could see for our time:



While there are many that claim they couldn't envision modern military armament I don’t think that is true. They were smart men. They knew a fire arm was replaced the bow and arrow, and it was possible to invent a rapid fire system just like with bows. They knew over times bombs get bigger, and that one day it would be possible make one so big it would destroy a whole city. Even planes, tanks, and subs were in the realm of the possible for the people of that day and age. They might have had a different picture in there head, but the general idea was there.



What they could not see for our time:



That school children would take military style weapons to school and shoot there class mates.


That people with severe mental health problems would get a hold of military style weapons then go on shooting sprees.


That people with no training would mass arms, well over the need to defend them selves and family, with no desires to protect there fellow citizens.


The American citizens would sit around and do almost nothing while tyrannical gangs control whole sections of our cities.



Conclusion:



The second amendment is out dated because we have taken the right and none of responsibility that our founding fathers amused we would. We have forgotten why we have this right. We have it so we as citizens can take back the gang infested sections of this country. To be able to on mass protect other peoples property when natural disasters occur. Our founding fathers did not think we were stupid enough to allow small children, people with severe metal health problems, and completely untrained people to have access to weapons of war.



Our Founding Fathers Would Be in Favor of The Following Bans:



A ban on large mag, heavy caliber, and automatic weapons for anyone that does not have military training.



Background checks to ban fire arms for people with severe mental health problems



A ban on any armed group, or person, with a stockpile of weapons unwilling to be called upon by there state in times of need.



Debate Round No. 1
BDPershing

Con

I thank you for you acceptance in this debate, best of luck.

"That school children would take military style weapons to school and shoot there class mates."
Assault Rifle:
Defined-
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
Style:
Defined-
A particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character.

The military Style you refer to is just that, a "look" that it is to be perceived as a military weapon such as an assault rifle that it is by definition not. Rifles out of all gun murders are only 323, out of 12,664, 6,220 were done by pistols. Pistols have a mag cap of ~15 at max which is more than the cap that mag restrictions are aiming for on rifles. Rifles are bulky and impractical to commit a crime, it not easy to conceal, it brings too much attention and over all more troublesome to reload compared to a pistol.

"That people with severe mental health problems would get a hold of military style weapons then go on shooting sprees."

In truth everyone, to a certain degree, is mentally ill, all veterans are technically mentally ill. In fact if you"re not mentally ill then you might be considered "inhuman", due to lack of Emotional response. As for getting a hold of a firearm, some due fall through the cracks but doesn't mean a ban should be required to correct this issue.

"That people with no training would mass arms, well over the need to defend them selves and family, with no desires to protect there fellow citizens."

This statement has no backing, yes Americans can own mobile firearms, but when every weapon has certain characteristics that differ from the other and are to be used in a different manor. One could say a good practice of a gun owner would be 1 Rifle, 1 shotgun, and 1 handgun, per person. A family of 3 would need 9 guns in one household. This is not even counting a specialized long range engagement rifle, a "sniper rifle" if you will. To carry a firearm one needs a permit currently, which requires training and a background check. Personal experience of my encounters would go as far to say gun owning Americans are the most likely to be in NRA, Militia, or a veteran, all willing to help their fellow American.

"The American citizens would sit around and do almost nothing while tyrannical gangs control whole sections of our cities."

Most gang territory is inside the strictest gun controlled states or are on the border. Hard to do something when citizens can"t even defend themselves or the gangs jumping the border to avoid conflict/law.

"The second amendment is out dated because we have taken the right and none of responsibility that our founding fathers amused we would. We have forgotten why we have this right. We have it so we as citizens can take back the gang infested sections of this country. To be able to on mass protect other peoples property when natural disasters occur. Our founding fathers did not think we were stupid enough to allow small children, people with severe metal health problems, and completely untrained people to have access to weapons of war."

I agree citizens should be able to combat the gangs in this country, but like I stated before most of these gangs reside on the border or in the strictest gun controlled states. It"s hard to fight an enemy who can freely run to another nation or is guarded by red tap focused on citizen"s ability to use firearms. As for natural disasters, the National Guard (organized militia), and even the unorganized militia have organized to help with disasters and even in Ferguson Oath Keepers went to do what they have power to do, defending shops who were at danger of being attacked and looted. But again, red tape restricts firing a rifle inside cities. Meaning they couldn't engage the gangs causing the attacks unless it is in self-defense, Later they were ordered to leave or be arrested by police. Showing the lack of power the current militia holds which can only be changed by listing the militia, organized or not, as a modern force allowing for enforcing law in a state of emergency (rioting), the ability to use military weaponry, in reason (no need for a tomahawk missile), But this can only be done by the Militia Act or State law. Small children accidents have been decreasing total of 19 in 2011, mental health is too broad to attempt any type of discrimination for in can include anyone and everyone, a rifle that a current civilian can hold is a semi-automatic, weapons of war can only be referring to military grade firearms which again are select fire, med caliber firearms which, to gain in America, requires a FBI background check and training to even purchase.

"A ban on large mag, heavy caliber, and automatic weapons for anyone that does not have military training."

"Article 1, Section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.""

As all people are part of the militia, all people must be able to appropriately provide themselves of the weaponry to combat an opposing military force. Therefor ban such things will only weaken the only constitutional legal military army. Training is up to the State to decide not Federal Government according to this article, so why not introduce legislation that would require all Americans, during schooling or something, to be trained in a military manor for X amount for days/weeks. No need to ban such things and limit what the American people (the militia) can do. By the way, only when the Federal Government raises the militia to combat an outside force does it take control of said militia.

"Background checks to ban fire arms for people with severe mental health problems"

I have stated before this is too broad of a ban for it can ban all Americans therefor again restricting the militia"s ability to defend the Nation. Background checks are already done but they cannot catch people who have never shown previous mental issues.

"A ban on any armed group, or person, with a stockpile of weapons unwilling to be called upon by there state in times of need."

Again I have found no proof of this ever occurring, and in my personal experience gun owners are more than willing to help their fellow American, as in country for the people are the country. If you"re referring to the gangs inside this country some are very patriotic, because they fear that the new rule will take their territory, and would fight to the death because of it. But yes the illegal gun users, the ones who have a gun, but intend to harm or threaten those who don"t submit, do need a crackdown. But ban is not needed, just enforcement of current illegal activity/ violence.

Conclusion:
Banning is not the solution it will restrict the people who are the only constitutionally legal military force, own as The Militia. Yes, there are people who use weapons; because guns are not the only thing that causes death, to commit crime, but like I said before these groups are located in gun restricted states/cities where the people can"t even do something about it. I would also point out the mass shootings are always done somewhere that has a no gun policy. Could it be the people who wish to do harm/crime do not want someone who will cause harm to them before they finish? We have gun restrictions all around us but has done nothing, how would a ban do anything more? A felon can still gain a weapon not from a store or gun shows as all anti-gun advocates point to. They either come from other gang members, across the border, a family member, (I would agree this grey area may need to be corrected but we shouldn't restrict guns by family affiliation) or the largest supplier, Black Market. The correct way to solve the mass shooting issue is to stop promoting mass shootings, for it may cause a copycat to emerge. Every time a mass shooting happens the media will cover it like ants on sugar. Is that really fair to promote all this attention to some who has committed a heinous act? Why not cover the old lady who scared off thugs using a gun, why not cover the countless crimes prevented by a gun? Firearms deter violence due to the fear of getting hurt, if we as people don"t promote attention to someone who wants to cause harm. Wouldn't that decrease their reasons for doing so? Every mass shooting was all for attention, before they attempt suicide to avoid the punishment in doing so. These are people, who want to die, wanted to remembered before they go, yet we give them the attention they want how is that fair? The 2nd amendment is still valid in this century and will continue to remain valid for it is a timeless right for the people. The only thing that needs to be done is the defining of Militia making it a Military force, requiring States to stop neglecting on the topic of Militia, the requirement for the new generations to trained to use a firearm and even military equipment, if Militia is considered a US military force, and the repeals of gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, who obey the law, to carry a fire arm, at least a pistol, for self and others defense against violence and crime. That is what is needed in this country not some ban or confiscation of the fire arms in America.
gomergcc

Pro

gomergcc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BDPershing

Con

Has my opponent forfeited? Or needs more time for a counter argument?
gomergcc

Pro

I wrote a rebuttal that was nice said exactly what I wanted to say. Then my Open Office Crashed. It will not let me reinstall. I got a copy of MS Word but it will not read the the file. :( All that made me late for my round. I am not going to rewite all of it.

My opponent has taken up that there should be no gun bans, and no change to the 2nd amendment is need. My opponent as dropped this argument.

My opponents argument:


The only thing that needs to be done is the defining of Militia making it a Military force, requiring States to stop neglecting on the topic of Militia, the requirement for the new generations to trained to use a firearm and even military equipment, if Militia is considered a US military force, and the repeals of gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, who obey the law, to carry a fire arm, at least a pistol, for self and others defense against violence and crime.

There is very little difference in my argument:

The only thing that needs to be done is the defining of Militia making it a Military force (Including a citizen militia or persons with a large stockpile of arms), requiring States to stop neglecting on the topic of Militia, the requirement for the new generations to trained to use a firearm and even military equipment (In a manor consistent with US military training style and requirements), if Militia is considered a US military force (Not in mine), and the repeals of gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, who obey the law, to carry a fire arm, at least a pistol, for self and others defense against violence and crime.(Have also completed military style training, are not deemed SMI, and register a willingness to be called upon by their state) (That the 2nd amendment should be reworded to reflect this.)

My opponent has basically coincided to my argument and now we are in an argument of semantics.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
1. the founders way of thinking was not applied to their time alone.

I think we are in agreement that they assumed we could keep some cultural things that tie in to this. Namely a willingness to fight for someone else freedoms. Also some of the language has changed. Try to get people now to understand that a republic and a democracy were considered to different forms of government back then. The constitution was written an away that is not as timeless as the declaration of independence. Had our founding fathers knew how our culture would be I argue they would have written things more clear. More to the masses and not to the educated.

2. All tyranny starts with gun bans/confiscations

This dose not agree with the rest of you statement. If someone cant own a gun then that is a gun ban. If they could and now they can't it is a confiscation. Your not quantifying this by saying wide spread. Honestly had you said wide spread gun band/confiscations I would not have taken up the debate.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
Seems like you didn't read much of my first argument, for the focus was evidence on how
1. the founders way of thinking was not applied to their time alone.
2. All tyranny starts with gun bans/confiscations
3. points out a arm society makes a great deterrent to foreign powers, hard to have an armed society with a gun ban.
4. wraps the first argument with quote from our founders.

None of theses points indicate, fire arms couldn't be have restrictions, it was all about the idea of "banning" guns.
My second argument was pointing out such bans you would wish to place would damage the protection of America, and your perceived threats to Americans are very limited, or cant be dealt with due to current regulations. Also pointing out some bans could include large if not all american therefor limiting the power of militia and doing a round about way of gun restriction which is illegal by the 2nd amendment. I counter propose legislation to expand Militia, teach gun safety and use in schools to younger generations, increase the capabilities of militia and citizens to engage violent gangs. Also debunked your claim that all arm civilians/groups are only for themselves and not the country. I pointed to legislation to free the people and allow them to effectively protect themselves from the violence that officers show up too late to engage, allowing the Militia to become a military force with power to engage gangs and violence in the country. I stood on the line of gun ban and pointed out your proposed bans that would only hurt the people nothing more. I gave solutions you presented restrictions, I provided insight, you proposed problems. I debunked the myths in this society, while you looked for a way to prosecute this misconceived society.

Don't misinterpret legislation of expansion as restrictions.
You provided no to limited support on the claim of needing a gun ban.
But attacked the 2nd which I humbly defended and gave alternative solutions that wouldn't impede i
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
As I stated out dated because there was much that was assumed we would take with that right that we don't. Also bans are a good idea. There are some people that just really should not have a gun. Unless you in favor of some one that is clearly not well mentally seeing things and talking about killing people still being able to own a gun. I didn't change my stance in the argument, I stayed with it. In round two you changed yours. You were less extreme than in round one. I had a lot of rebuttals that took for ever to write and I just was not going to rewrite them. Think mostly we could agree. Mostly we disagree on how to address untrained people, that want the right and none of the responsibility the founding fathers wanted us to have.

Mostly steams from us seeing a few things differently. I just don't see people really taking the responsibility. NRA wants people like me no stop voting for gun laws, and I want people like the NRA to seen citizen cops in to WATTS in L.A., and start making citizen arrests of the gang members. That part of why I see its out dated. The 2nd admendment tied in to a few things we lost sight of because they were not spelled out more clearly.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
sucks mergcc that happened,
My argument is based on the defense of the right to bears weapons, when confiscation and bans are in serious talk, which mostly revolves and the 2nd amendment being outdated. Therefor I have provided an argument against such actions on only stated the obvious solutions that could be taken without the need of a ban while still upholding that the 2nd amendment is still relevant in this century. Bans are an extreme option and I prefer to not go down the same route as most European nations have done, we severed our ties to that type of thinking long ago. It seems my opponent who first started with the agreement of banning fire arms and believing that the 2nd amendment is outdated, to being in agreement the gun bans are too extreme and new legislation and youth training could not only reduce the negative effect but give our nation a strong militia back bone for defense of our nation to be propelled into the future, therefor my opponent seems to have fallen into agreement on my argument.

I thank you for the debate and the logical argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
BDPershinggomergccTied
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: FF. Due to the fact neither side set BOP, the default BOP goes onto PRO. Pro FF'd a round, harming his chances for success exponentially. PRO also really made no *convincing* case that the 2nd amendment was outdated. Although he argued the founders may support a ban on *some* guns, this really doesn't refute CON's premise. The second amendment pertains to the right to keep and bear arms--so *some* controls could be constitutional. Therefore, pro should have made an argument for a gun ban, in order to reduce crime rates, and he would have won the "gun ban" part of the resolution. He then fails to say the constitution could be amended to override the second amendment, due to its outdated status. But he failed to make convincing arguments using that simple approach. I reluctantly vote for CON, although CON didn't make very good arguments either. But as stated, BOP is on pro, so CON *technically* wins the debate.