The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Liquidus
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Gun rights

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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,039 times Debate No: 19241
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (62)
Votes (6)

 

16kadams

Pro

I have done many debates on this topic, and I have only faced one formidable opponent. To make things straight I will give some criteria for the debate. This debate is about america, and you can use other countries statistics if you would like, but relate the proof to america in one way or another.

First round is acceptance and saying where you stand on the topic and provide reasons so the reader can understand this better.

I am for gun rights.

1. protected my the constitution
2. lowers crime
3. a gun is not dangerous.

Videos are allowed, I will be posting one in the 2nd round.
Liquidus

Con

I am for gun rights, but because I am very bored and there are no other debates worth my time at the moment, I will take your weak premises on for show as the devil's advocate. I request if I may that videos are not allowed.

It seems that in order for me to win, I must prove Pros premises to be folly.

Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

The BoP is on both of us, just clarifying that. And I deny your video request, what I said still stands, I'll just post one later in the debate.

1. The constitution lays it out.

My first point will be about political ideologies. It is against the founding fathers ideologies to be against guns. So that is simple logic, also without guns america would have gotten their butts whooped during the revolution, so they thought more guns would help in this instance. You will probably say how would we win against an army with only guns. In WW2 the Warsaw ghetto revolt took place. A few hundred Jews lightly armed held of 2,000 German soldiers, and 200 of them where the elite S.S. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
This part was copied from: http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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." Look at this like a grammarian, shall not be infringed. The comma and the word infringed, that means it should already be a given right and an obvious one. Also the second part of that phrase says the right of the people... So it is protected by law. So political ideology, plain words, and grammar the 2nd amendment is a valid gun protection law.

2. Lowers crime.

Violent crime decreased six percent between 2009 and 2010, including a four percent decrease in murder and a ten percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 47 percent to a 36-year low. Murder has fallen 51 percent to a 46-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called "assault weapons," would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.4
(1)

Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements. There are now 40 Right-to-Carry states, an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, 33 have "castle doctrine" laws protecting the right to use guns in self-defense, and Congress and 33 states prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.9 Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime. (1)

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower (2)

Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban (2)

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower (2)

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect (2)

Now here are numbers that prove more guns less crime, not only the less guns more crime things listed above:

* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower (2)

Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower (2)

3. Guns aren't dangerous.

This is probably the most shaky and controversial argument I put forth, but are guns really dangerous. Well if I had a fully loaded gun on my counter and NO ONE touched it would it go off? Lets say NOTHING touched it would it go off? Not you might say what if you drop it, it might go off then. That is false. Historically that is true but new safety mechanisms on guns show that if you drop it it will not go off unless the trigger is pulled. So the dropping argument is a fallacy, and wouldn't someone or something have to touch it to make it fall? A gun it self isn't inheritly dangerous, if it goes off it is the person who is handling it's fault. So that is the clarification. Guns aren't dangerous unless messed with. It is an inanimate object, so saying a gun is dangerous is like saying a bed is dangerous. Their both inanimate, so it cant be blamed, only the user. User error, not gun error. Yes I knew that was repetitive, but I needed to let it sink in :) And also how does something that lowers crime be largly dangerous?

for Graphs for my 2nd point look at my (2) scource. I like graphs more then words. Also I will still post a video, but later on.

Sources:
http://www.nraila.org... (1)
http://www.justfacts.com... (2)
Liquidus

Con

Thank you for providing a lengthy presentation. A general note on debates: Wikipedia should not and will not ever be taken as a source. I could have been the person to put that information on there.

Rebuttal:

1. The Constitution. I don't see why this is even used. Just because some people said it was okay to have weapons 300 years ago, does not mean its right. Protected yes, right no. I also will argue saying that when the Constitution was written, the guns they had were inaccurate, a necessary part of providing food, and because they had no law enforcement, needed weapons on their persons at all times. Because we live in a new society, it is not necessary for us to have weapons. Today, are weapons are more powerful and more accurate, we can buy food, and we have a well established means of law enforcement. With the addition of alcohol and other drugs, violence, and the complexity of some types of guns, it is not the optimal environment for civilians to possess guns or any type of firearms.

2. Think about this, every time a gun is used in lowering a crime, a gun is used as a violent tool to commit a crime. That is, for every time you lowered crime with a gun, you just committed a crime with a gun. Therefore, this point is a fallacy because it nullifies itself.

3. Yes, this is the most shaky and controversial issue yet. In order for us both to understand the term "dangerous" we need a proper definition: Dictionary.com defines dangerous as: Able or likely to cause harm. With this definition, it is clear that a loaded gun on a table would indeed be "able or likely to cause harm". Notice how the key word is "cause". If there was no gun, there would be no chance.

Conclusion

Guns are dangerous. They are not necessary, they are not practical, and they are able to present major harm to our society. With the other variables around us, guns could be used more easily for violence. Therefore, guns are bad and they should be done away with lol.

This was fun Pro, I look forward to your rebuttal!

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

"A general note on debates: Wikipedia should not and will not ever be taken as a source. I could have been the person to put that information on there."

It is an ok scource. I think it is viable and it has good basic information. It also proves my point that the 2nd ammendment is pro-guns.

"Just because some people said it was okay to have weapons 300 years ago, does not mean its right. Protected yes, right no. "

I have two things to say about this. 1. Didn't the founding fathers say freedom of speech 300 years ago? And almost everyone in the U.S. thinks that is a good statement and still holds up today. How about search and seizure without a warrant, it helps keep your privacy, and that was declered 300 years ago. So was a right to a fair trial. And that still holds up today. So your age of the bill argument is an invalid argument, and a logical fallacy. 2. How is something protected by law and still not a right? If all of what I stated above that is in the constitution is a right, why arent guns? So you probably like the 1st ammendment, but want to destroy the second? The constitution are AMERICAN Rights! So if that is it's purpose why disregard what it says? Think about that.

"Think about this, every time a gun is used in lowering a crime, a gun is used as a violent tool to commit a crime. That is, for every you lowered crime with a gun, you just committed a crime with a gun. Therefore, this point is a fallacy because it nullifies itself."

One question, how does something lower crime raise crime? You havent stated how. About 2000 guns each day are used in self-defence. And you say you will use the gun to kill, most of these cases just showing the gun will make the attacker pull off.

Here's a copy paste:

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reports that guns are used defensively about one million times per year. Ninety-eight percent of those times, not a single shot is fired, since the criminal runs away at the sight of the gun. Researcher John Lott, using fifteen surveys from such organizations as the Los Angeles Times, and Gallup, concluded that guns were used defensively 760,000 to 3.6 million times. No matter which side you err on, that is a lot of defensive gun uses, definitely more than are hurt in gun violence in any year. In light of those statistics, the question changes into: Is it safe NOT to have a gun in your house? http://www.saf.org...

So Sice most defense the gun is never fired no crim eis commited on either side.


"Dictionary.com defines dangerous as: Able or likely to cause harm. With this definition, it is clear that a loaded gun on a table would in alaodeed be "able or likely to cause harm". Notice how the key word is "cause". If there was no gun, there would be no chance.

Sicne I said if you didnt touch it then it would REALLY not have any chance of it going off. The only way it would go off is if someone picked it up and pulled the trigger. You never addressed that issue.

'Guns are not dangerous. I said it. Guns are not dangerous. Now, bullets are extremely dangerous. People are even more dangerous. I have never heard of a gun killing anything, except maybe in times of war when they are occasionally used to bludgeon someone to death when the user has run out of dangerous bullets. Guns do not kill people. Bullets do.' http://huntingdads.com...

And even bullets aren't dangerous in and of them selfs, only if a person does the deed. Would a bullet kill someone without gun+a person. Even a loaded gun wouldnt kill unless a person pulled the trigger. You can't even argue against that, and you know it. My Dad tested this in our mountian house, he loaded his springfeild .45 hand gun and put it on the counter, and said, "no one touch this, if it is dangerous it will go off, if not it will do nothing". Guess what, it never went off. So guns are not dangerous, people are. So even if you illegilize weapons Murder would still exist. I could bludgend someone with a lap top, but that would be dumb, but it would still kill. So then lets illegilize those. Nothing is dangerous that is an inanimant object. They are made dangerous from humans or other things. So Resolved: guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Now that I have refuted your case I will add on to mine.

'the Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment, although it generally avoids doing so. The last direct decision involving the 2nd Amendment was in 1939, in a case called U.S. vs. Miller. This case dealt with a man who was detained for unlawfully transporting a sawed off shotgun. He sued, saying he had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thus transport the shotgun. Initially, his defense succeeded, and the charges were dropped with no trial. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. Mr. Miller was too poor to retain an attorney, so only the government's side was argued in court. Without the defendant to present evidence or defend himself, the Supreme Court ruled that in "absence of evidence to the contrary" they couldn't say that the shotgun served a purpose in a well maintained militia. Instead, they sent the case back to a lower court, and ordered a trial, which would determine whether or not the shotgun was legal according to his second amendment protections. Thus they recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, so long as those arms serve a purpose in the militia. Many scholars have felt that if Mr. Miller had shown up to his trial, he could have easily proven that a sawed off shotgun has many useful purposes in a militia, such as in World War I, when it was used as a trench clearing tool. However, because the verdict went against Mr. Miller, gun control groups have claimed it as a victory, and falsely claim that the Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a collective right. In reality, no collective right was ever mentioned, and the case was simply sent back to a lower court for a full trial.' http://www.saf.org...


"According to the 13th annual survey that was sent to 21,000 sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the vast majority of officers believed that citizens should be able to buy guns.

Responding to the question, "Do you believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense?" Ninety-Three percent of officers responded affirmatively" http://www.saf.org...

“Guns are dangerous.” “Guns kill people.” These are descriptions of things people do, not things of which inanimate objects are capable

So this statement above basically sums up my 3rd point. So since this is true, then thats like saying a book on your shelf is dangerous, only if you like to hit thigs with it. So the only way to make a gun dangerous is to put it into dumb peoples hands or crazy people's hands.

For more info that gun control is bad go to: http://www.123helpme.com...

Also P.S. I decided not to post a video for your convinence.

Liquidus

Con

Thanks for the intelligible response.

First, wikipedia is not allowed as a source at my university so ergo, I don't allow it to be used on here.

1. I do not support the first amendment. I do not believe in freedom of religion and we do not have freedom of speech. If we have freedom of speech, we could say "fire" in a theater or yell "this is a robbery" in a bank. Because we cant, we don't have the freedom of speech. Therefore, my first argument stands.

2. If you reread my argument you will see that I did in fact clarify as to how this truth is applied. However, if you didn't understand it I will clarify again. If person "X" uses a gun to kill a criminal "person Y" who had a gun, then person "X" still used a gun to kill. Here it is as an equation: GUN -/+ GUN = GUN being used at one point or another, either to be used for crime or against crime.

3. Whether the gun is touched or not, it still is "Able" to be used for harm.


Because my arguments were not refuted, I continue them on to the next round. I look forward to the next round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

" I do not support the first amendment. I do not believe in freedom of religion and we do not have freedom of speech. If we have freedom of speech, we could say "fire" in a theater or yell "this is a robbery" in a bank. Because we cant, we don't have the freedom of speech. Therefore, my first argument stands."

Not to be mean or anything, but have you read the constitution. On private property they can censor you. The news can censor you, I can censor you, a theatre can make rules saying what you can say in a movie theatre. The constirution is about the goverment not taking away these rights. So in a bar the bar can choose to say 'hey put away your gun' but a goverment agent cant. So those laws in my about the bar thing is un-constitutional and it should be bar owner chooses. Also Since now you know people can't say that then you will probably like it. Also you are probably for a free trial, and that is still 300 years old. If you are against that then North Korea would be a good area for that ideology. But In america I will accept your opinion.


"If person "X" uses a gun to kill a criminal "person Y" who had a gun, then person "X" still used a gun to kill. Here it is as an equation: GUN -/+ GUN = GUN being used at one point or another, either to be used for crime or against crime."

So you sare saying owning a gun from a gun dealer is bad? And the dealer never says go kill him with this gun. That claim is proposterous. Your saying in self-defense you would use the gun to kill, which = crime. You probably disregarded my scource and statement on that. It said what like 98% of self defense cases involve no shots fired. Just the showing of the gun. So your claim is going against the facts.

"Whether the gun is touched or not, it still is "Able" to be used for harm."

How? an inanimant object cant do anything! I repeat, can a inanimat object kill you? NO! Not without a 2nd party interferance. A gun that is not touched I garrentee will not go off, only if something touches it would it have any chance to do so. Heck I'll bet 1,000,000$! Your claim is saying something that can't do anything on its own would hurt someone. Sorry, but basic knowlage trumps you there.

By the way, I have refuted your arguments twice now, and both times where sufficient your case is totally invalid.

Now I will add more detail to each of my 3 points so I will have a strong case, although it already was.

1. protected by law.

Since I disproved your 300 years ago statement, I will keep pressing this argument. Also aai dont understand your hatred towards wikipedia if it is as good as brittannica. So I will give you other scources that you would not object too. The militia phrase is the one that people like you use. Well people that look at that and take that stance fail to recognise the 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. So that is pretty darn clear. The militia thing says the army has guns, this says the people can too. To "keep" arms means keeping one's own, private, arms. Also I think I addressed this earlier, look at the shall not be infringed. That means it is protecting something that should already be there. (the right should already be god given/exist already). So it is protected, we agree, so that already solidifys my main argument.

2. lower crime

I've already showed my reasoning, but here are the stats (graphs):
-



So theres that.

3. Guns are not dangerous.

I have said a lot already. An inanimant object cant kill alone, it needs something alive to pull the trigger. So guns are not inherintly dangerous, but people are.

Liquidus

Con

As this debate comes to a close, I give thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic with you.

Rebuttal

1. Your entire rebuttal on the first point is based on a false idea of the constitution that has been taught to students. Constitutional Law third edition by John G. Schmalleger, states that "The Constitution has power over all state functions" It also states that "The Constitution however, does not have authority on private industries". With this being said, your entire rebuttal is a false idea.

2. Your rebuttal on the second point is still unclear. You never understood what I meant. I recommend you reread the original statements I made on this earlier in the debate.

3. This third point is still very strong and without proper rebuttal. To answer your question simply, fire is an inanimate object which presents the possibility of harm. Toxic gas too represents a hazard. Even a loaded gun represents a possible hazard. Therefore, this point stands.

Your remaining comments are simply repostings of your original thoughts. And if your refer to my rebuttal in round two, you will see my thoughts.

Because my points have gone irrefuted and my opponents arguments are clearly shown to be fallacies, I ask for a vote in my favor.

Otherwise, I thank you for your opportunity to debate this topic and I look forward to debating again someday.
Debate Round No. 4
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
Oh, and Liquidus:
Why did you decline my debate offer? What about it should I change that we did not agree on?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
yall should make a forum, then you could debate until your fingers fall off, heck go debate the topic.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
*Ignore*
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
I am being disruptive by standing up for Wikipedia against people who scatter unjustified criticism? Whether you like it or not, the viability of Wikipedia is, in fact, a major component of how this debate is being evaluated. I am trying to keep to this important topic; your attempts at dropping the subject are what is truly disruptive here.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
You are being very disruptive. Please, please, please get a life.
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@Renascor:
Academia is not the place to challenge stubborn people. I have made my case for Wikipedia. If you simply deny the evidence presented, then you spit in the face of rationality.

For the record, the head of the Philosophy department at my university (he and I are friends) is the one who informed me of the accuracy of Wikipedia. I'm sure that in any of his classes (Of which I am taking 2) he would allow Wikipedia for the purposes that encyclopedias are to be put. See my notes on appropriate use of an encyclopedia.

Side note:
Spam: disruptive messages, especially commercial messages posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail.
- Dictionary.com
As the Wikipedia issue is entirely relevant, I'd say I'm not being disruptive in any way.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
MIO, I see you are spamming another good debate. I challenge you to use Wikipedia as a reference on just one research paper, and then upon receiving your "F" explaining to your teacher that Wikipedia is as good as Britannica.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
looking at that artilce notice that its references are all byast against wikipedia, also they made it that you need an account to edit so that it limits the ammount of people editing, and further more with less people editing the wikipedia staff can check edits more efficiently to make sure that the edit is good and relavant. Wikipedia wansnt my main scource, it was a secondary one, I had multiple other scources, and hey at least I had scources unlike liquidis.
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
To save their asses. No more.
Unless you want to throw a tantrum in the face of evidence, stop ignoring the study showing that Wikipedia is as good as the Britannica. Wikipedia is no less reliable than any other encyclopedia.

What encyclopedias are good for:
1) getting a general understanding of a topic
2) getting a list of sources for further reading on a topic if necessary
What encyclopedias are NOT good for:
- giving a lot of detail on a specific subject

As Pro only used Wikipedia for the purposes that encyclopedias are good for and are meant to be used for, I maintain that its use was justified.

Again I will repeat my claim that unless you wish to disregard the Britannica as well, disregarding Wikipedia as inadequate is simply foolish.
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
Hey orange boy, here is something I thought you would like:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
16kadamsLiquidusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: as a counterbomb to Renascor's inability to vote reasonably. Spelling and Grammar: trivial explanation. Convincing Arguments: Although points 1 and 3 were pretty poor, point 2 was more than convincing, and Con never presented a good response to it. Reliable Sources: Pro didn't just use Wikipedia (not that that's a problem)... he also cited several other sources. Liquidus provided none.
Vote Placed by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
16kadamsLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: You can't use wikipedia as a primary source...Maybe as a secondary source
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
16kadamsLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a few spelling mistakes such as failing to have the apostrophe for aren't. Arguments to pro as he demonstrated that guns are necessary for protection and safety. He demonstrated that criminals run away at the sight of guns, and con didn't even bother to refute that. Sources go to pro because he was the only participant to use sources.
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
16kadamsLiquidusTied
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 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: Con provided very valid arguments that were both organized, fulfilling, and addressing. Con provided a very impressive argument that made me doubt my own beliefs. Great debate!
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
16kadamsLiquidusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were solid and statistical, whereas Cons seemed more opinionated. Pro lost points for using wikipedia, though.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
16kadamsLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses the Founders as experts on assigning rights, that's not the end of it, but it takes very strong evidence to overcome. The key issue was the second contention, that the evidence does not contradict gun rights. Con's argument was weak; no crime is committed by using a gun in self-defense self-defense. The last argument is moot. Rocks and lakes are dangerous in the sense that Con contends. Many, many things are "able" to do harm if misused. That has little relevance.