The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Gun/bully control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,196 times Debate No: 31782
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




The concept that Gun and bulling are out of control is outrages to take away guns is a violation of your rights and insult the VERY THING that built this country might as well as take away the military Knifes and tell them to use there hands. Bulling has been around to FOR CENTURIES DON'T FALL FOR MISLEADING THING yes its sad for people to shoot other kids and themselves but your not helping by PUTTING KIDS IN JAIL its like putting gays in jail ITS THERE WAY OF LIFE.


I accept this debate.

I have little understanding of what you are even trying to say, but I will take this on, anyway.
So, to begin with guns, correct me if I am wrong (It would be nice if you could attempt to spell), but you are assuming the position that any control of weapons, and any control of bullying is a violation of our natural rights...

Well, the one thing I will agree with you on is that we have our second amendment. Sure. Does that entitle us to buy RPGs and equip them over our shoulders? If you are assuming the position that gun control is a violation of our rights, please tell me where it says that we NEED weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute. I agree, and I am not saying weapons should be banned at all. I am saying that making gun control laws has no violation of our rights. Are you telling me that your response to Sandy Hook, Aurora, Hood, Oregon mall shooting, your response is to do NOTHING because you think that trying to protect the citizens is a violation of our natural rights? It's the opposite, the government has the OBLIGATION to protect its citizens. With your criteria, everyone has the right to run around with sniper rifles. Criminals. Yeah, that's why we have gun control.

Bullying? Are you telling me that trying to stop bullying is an offense on natural rights? Please, point this out to me. I'd love to know. You are saying that bullying is a bully's way of life? With that criteria, Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, and that is their way of life, and we should do nothing about it? What? Yeah, maybe we will put kids in jail if they stab another kid.

I have made it clear that gun control and bullying are in no way a violation of rights. That is my job as the aff, you provided no resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


First I apologize for my spelling second I mean if you were to be told that you can't say what you want you would be mad right no put your self on the second amendment our founding fathers did NOT use words alone that's like saying that you shouldn't write with a pen or pencil because it could be use as a weapon how would you write. Plus forgive to the victims but just because there are shootings you blame guns how bout the Newton shooting was that just guns no he had a MENTAL problem. Martin Luther Kings J.R. assassination was that GUNS no his killer HATED him. As for bullying sorry my point went across wrong I mean you can't punish EVERY KID just because of others you clam that if I call my friend gay or even me and a group of friends vote to kick someone as our friend and we're called the bully not cool. Second if you have a problem with someone you don't go off and shoot them do you? No and what I meant by way of life was if your going to punish the bully just because they don't follow society what about the gays who FOR CENTURIES THEY HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST throw them in jail like people used to. Finally I apologize to any victims I offend.


Like I've said, fully-automatic assault weapons will do damage. Do you deny that? The second amendment allows us the right to bear arms. Like I've said, the point that went uncontested, do you see people running around with sniper rifles? No. Why? I thought the second amendment gave us the right to bear arms, right? Just because we have the right to bear arms, the government will do what is needed in order to ensure the maximum safety for the citizens. Now, this IS NOT a debate on banning automatic weapons, or in fact, banning any weapons at all. Your wording was "Gun control", NOT "Weapon banning". It is therefore the burden of the Con to show why ANY forms of gun control are not to be issued. This includes background checks, and any other regulation. Gun banning for unneeded weapons should be issued. Answer me this: why do you NEED the automatic weapons in your home? Is it not also a violation, by your argument, to take away RPGs from citizens? Currently, citizens can't just flail them around. That is the Status Quo. Guns allow killing to occur much more easily than without them.

I am literally lost on your whole bully argument. People aren't thrown in jail for calling other kids "gay", would you re-phrase that argument, I cannot understand what you are trying to say.
Debate Round No. 2


What I mean by control is the fact the government clams that each citizen is born with natural rights and the ability to follow there happiness most people clam that control and taking away are different think about this you can't swear in school ok bear with me they clam they are controlling what you say but really taking away your right to say it that what I'm trying to get across here you can't control/ take away someone's natural rights given to you by being born in this country. The reason you don't see criminals with guns (RPGS, machine guns etc.) is because wouldn't it be kind be clear "Hey every guys I have a rocket launcher lets be friends." Before all the laws DID YOU SEE THAT DID YOU. You clam that people would walk around with machine guns and RPGS why didn't this happen in the past? As for my bulling argument when I use the term gay I mean that I am "bullying" them because I call them a name ONCE.


My opponent was not able to defend any of his arguments. He was not able to defend every time of gun control, which his burden was, and he wasn't able to show why no gun control laws shouldn't be put into place. My opponent wasn't able to defend his second-amendment/natural rights argument, because he said that "you can't control/take away someone's natural rights given to you by being born in this country." Sure, but, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Like my undisputed argument showed, the government has the obligation to protect its citizens, so it will control weapons to the point where we won't be equipping fully-auto machine guns on our backs. My opponent's defense on this made no sense, and you cannot look to it. My opponent also doesn't seem to have any knowledge of American history, "You clam that people would walk around with machine guns and RPGS why didn't this happen in the past?"

Well, see, in the past, RPGs didn't exist. Then, the second amendment was put into place. They didn't exist. These are obviously not weapons needed by citizens. These are military-grade weapons, so my opponent seems to think it's wise for these types of weapons to be used in public.

My opponent's bullying argument shouldn't be considered because he spent almost no time showing what he meant.

I urged a Pro Vote for these reasons, thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 3 years ago
I don't mean to hate on you or anything but...what does it matter if it was your first argument on here? Lack of rational is lack of rational.
Also, please fix your grammar next time. I don't mind mistakes (everybody makes them) but this was either clear disregard for grammar or you need to learn. It was very very distracting while reading your statements.

Ok, on to the argument. You think nobody would want an RPG? Many probably wouldn't have them because they would be expensive but you honestly think no one would want one? I know many people who think it would be awesome to own one. To me, this argument felt like you had a viewpoint and you formed reasoning behind it. Instead, one should take reasoning and form a viewpoint from it.
Posted by nathanknickerbocker.9 3 years ago
let me just state that this was my first argument so i was kinda new
Posted by MattHarrison 3 years ago
Con I understand your gun-control argument. You made good points on that issue. But why debate bullying and gun control at the same time? The two are completely irrelevant to each other and I do not even know what you were trying to convince voters about bullying.
Posted by kona22 3 years ago
Comparing gays to bullies makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yes, being gay is a gay persons way of life, and so is being a bully for bullies. But gay people hurt no one with their lifestyle, whereas bullies often cause physical and emotional damage to the people they bully. And guns regularly kill people, and have been for hundreds of years. When our country was founded, guns didn't have hardly any of the killing capacity as modern guns do. Slavery had also been a part of our country for a long time. And was that a good idea? We have to move forward as a country, and stop holding on to old and outdated ideas. And I bet you've never been bullied, and I bet you don't even really care about the hundreds of thousands of people either killed by guns or driven to suicide by bullying, or even those who have been hurt by senseless shootings and bullies.
Posted by nathanknickerbocker.9 3 years ago
I'm putting this so there is no confusion one this was my first argument two when i mean past i don't mean 1700's
Posted by nathanknickerbocker.9 3 years ago
Sorry for certain grammar things didn't type
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con's arguments didn't make too much sense most of the time and neither did his grammar. The Pro did a good job at countering him.