Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept. Arguments in the next round.
Note: Pro said give ideas so he cannot win.
I thank Pro.
Okay, Pro cannot win because he states a question and tells me my opinion.
Contention 1: Guns are illegal
In many countries guns are illegal. This is because they can kill people. Guns are illegal in many different countries and we should not follow illegal things, or else there was a punishment. This is the first reason why gun rights are bad.
Contention 2: Guns are dangerous.
Almost all murders are from guns and knives. However, knives are used for everyday tools, when guns are not.
Vote for Con.
Opponent's first point
I would like to ask why some counties make firearms illegal? Countries like China and North Korea ban all firearms from private use. Nazi Germany also banned firearms from the Jews. However I live in a country that allows firearm ownership so my opponent's argument does not apply to me. That being said if a country bans firearms then until the law changes, those who cannot speak out against it will have to follow the law and not say anything
Opponent's second point
Firearms are not dangerous. In order to make something dangerous it has to inflict injury while in normal use. In other words it has to be by accident. Why knives are tools but firearms aren't? If by your definition of "dangerous" that means knives also are dangerous, also matches. Firearms have been used for other things besides killing like target practice. Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.
Sorry for not going in depth from the second round.
1. My opponent gives no evidence.
s://publichealthwatch.files.wordpress.com...; alt="gun myth 4" width="577" height="130" />
My first picture shows you that guns are 73 percent of not defense and 8 percent of defense.
There is a large amount of research that guns were not for safety.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year 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: Pro seemed to make assertions instead of arguments. Asserting that there are more than 1 million cases per year is no good unless you explain its significance and more importantly source this claim. It bares no impact upon the resolution unless it is proven to be a fact via sourcing. Con sourced all his statistics and claims and these were left insufficiently addressed. The only addressing to these claims that Pro made were un-sourced claims that required sourcing in order for them to bare weight upon the resolution. Naming specific elements regarding countries as a rebuttal without sourcing means that I cannot validate the credibility of these arguments. Con sourced what requires sources in his arguments and his rebuttal and therefore they stand and Pro's don't.
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.