Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.