The Instigator
jakoplant1
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Guns are not necessary in society

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 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 44705
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

jakoplant1

Pro

Gun legalization is not needed in the US for anything past very small calibre and in instances where someone's livelihood depends on owning a gun (hunters).

Rules:
-Citations needed
Zaradi

Con

I accept the debate. But first let's talk about the resolution.

The resolution itself is highly skewed in pro's favor. Not only is it set up as a negative wording (instead of affirming to do x action, the resolution is set up so that affirming means we don't do x action, which is a little bit of a turn around from convention), but it's so skewed toward pro's favor that I'd say that if we're even remotely close at all, you default to voting neg just because if we're even kinda close to tied, then I did the far better job at debating the resolution.

Next, as the resolution is specific to gun use within society, we should probably know what society is. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, it's "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends;especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession"(1).

And, because the resolution is asking me about gun's use within society, not gun's use overall, all I have to do to prove that guns are necessary to society is to prove that a society needs guns. If I do that, you vote con.

With both of those in mind, let's look to my opponent's first round, where they concede the following: "Gun legalization is not needed in the US for anything past very small calibre and in instances where someone's livelihood depends on owning a gun (hunters)" (emphasis my own).

This right here is a concession of a society (i.e. hunters) that have need of guns. If my opponent wishes to take back this statement, which you shoulnd't let him because that's incredibly unfair to me, then I'm willing to defend how hunters need guns in order to sustain themselves.

Other than that, my argument will be as follows: guns are necessary so that we don't all die a horrible, horrible death.

My logic will be as follows:

P1: Various terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda being one, have access to lots of guns.
P2: Al Qaeda have motive to use those guns against us.
P3: Guns pose dangers of injury and/or death.
C1: We are in danger of injury and/or death.
P4: Guns help us defend ourselves against this injury and/or death.
P5: Other means are insufficient to fully defend ourselves against this injury and/or death.
C2: Guns are necessary for our society to not die.

I'm willing to defend any of these premises should they become under attack, but I'll offer a brief explanation of each one regardless.

P1: Various terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda being one, have access to lots of guns.

This one should be pretty self-explanatory. It's what they used in Iraq and Afghanistan to attack US troops.

P2: Al Qaeda have motive to use those guns against us.

Al Qaeda has declared a jihad, or holy war, against the US. We have essentially been marked for death by their radical beliefs. They will not stop until they are dead or we are dead.

P3: Guns pose dangers of injury and/or death.

Please don't tell me you're actually considering attacking this one. I may cry a little on the inside.

C1: We are in danger of injury and/or death.

The conclusison follows from the premises. If Al Qaeda have guns, have reason to use those guns against us, and those guns really hurt us, then we're in danger.

P4: Guns help us defend ourselves against this injury and/or death.

It's kinda hard for them to shoot us if we're shooting back at them.

P5: Other means are insufficient to fully defend ourselves against this injury and/or death.

I will defend against any alternative to defending ourselves that my opponent may bring up, but let's be real here: what else would we use? Rocks? Swords and shields? Hardly any kind of protection.

C2: Guns are necessary for our society to not die.

The conclusion follows from the rest of the premises. If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else, then they are necessary for our society.

I await my opponent's response.

Sources:
(1) - http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
jakoplant1

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. For clarification, when I said "in instances where someone's livelihood depends on owning a gun (hunters)" I meant not only hunters but also anyone whose livelihood depends on a gun, which includes soldiers and police officers who use weapons as a tool for their jobs .Now i'll get right to your points;

P1: "Various terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda being one, have access to lots of guns."

I take it that you said this with regards to soldiers, and since I was not clear enough for you I will allow you to withdraw it.

P2:"Al Qaeda have motive to use those guns against us."

Same as point 1.

P3:Guns pose dangers of injury and/or death.

Not sure why I wouldn't attack this one…in fact, I couldn't have said it any better my self. The primary reason not to legalize guns (especially high powered rifles) is because of the huge danger they pose to our most vulnerable demographic; our children. Guns kill roughly 1,500 children each year(1,2). This number is appalling, especially since many of the people who are pro gun legalization are pro life and say that they are trying to save the lives of children…

P4: "Guns help us defend ourselves against this injury and/or death.
It's kinda hard for them to shoot us if we're shooting back at them."

Please specify who you mean with "them" (again, in a civilian situation)

P5: "Other means are insufficient to fully defend ourselves against this injury and/or death."

Please specify who you are planning to defend yourself from.

I find some irony in you conclusion when you say "If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else", because the majority of the time it is guns that are putting us in danger in the first place...

Sources:
(1)http://www.nbcnews.com...
(2)http://www.nationwidechildrens.org...
Zaradi

Con

My opponent vastly misunderstands my arguments, and makes laughably fallacious arguments.

Start at the top of his round two, very first paragraph. This is where he's misunderstanding what I'm saying. He's trying to say that hunters and soldiers and stuff are exceptions to his rule, therefore outside the scope of the resolution. But what I'm saying, via the dropped resolutional analysis point and the definiton of society that I provide, is that because they are exceptions to his rule, as he just conceded for a second time therefore don't let him go back on this, you instantly negate the resolution right there because I fulfill my burden of showing a society that needs guns. He's not even trying to fight it. This is literally game-over for pro, so don't let him go back on this one. Hold him to his position and concession.

His responses to my first two premises rely on the concession above, so my first two premises stand.

But let's talk about the response to my third premise, of guns being dangerous.

1. I don't really understand what he's trying to refute here. My arguments is that guns are dangerous and he responds by saying...that guns can hurt people. If anything this is a concession to my point.
2. The internal logic behind his position is ridiculously dumb. His argument is that guns have been used to injure children, therefore remove the guns and the injuries stop. That's like saying "A lot of people die in car wrecks every year, let's ban cars". (And I do hope my opponent recognizes the ridiculousness in the analogy). It's also similar to the analogy "A lot of people are being beaten by steel pipes. Let's outlaw steel pipes."
3. While this point has absolutely no relevance to the debate, I find myself obligated to point out one absolutely moronic statement and point out the laughable flaws within it:

"This number (referring to child deaths from guns) is appalling, especially since many of the people who are pro gun legalization are pro life and say that they are trying to save the lives of children…" (italicized my own clarification).

To start with, he's comparing gun legalisation to abortion, which a) has no relevance to the resolution, b) has no relevance to each other, c) has absolutely no substance behind the claim other than just his say-so, and d) is just a complete ad hom as well ("Oh, you think we should be legalizing guns? I bet you're pro-life too -insert sneer-").

Then to the tail end of the statement where he's talking about how the want to not abort unborn children (i.e. being pro life), is in contradiction with wanting to legalize guns. It's just head-pounding-on-desk-until-your-skull-cracks-open dumb. There's no link between the two statements, no warrant to assume there's a link there, and just no logic behind the belief at all. It's just...bad. There's literally no other word for it other than bad.

As for point four, two things:

1. No warrant for why this has to be a civilian issue. I'm cleary giving an example of how guns are needed within a military setting, which his outlawing would get rid of, Look to my definition of society that my opponent never responded to, which makes no distinction between military and civilian life.
2. Even if this was in a civilian setting, the logic still holds. If terrorists are shooting at us, they have a lot harder time of actually hitting us if we're defending ourselves (i.e. shooting back). I thought that the implications was pretty clear.

As for point five:

......come on man. The entire syllogism is about defending ourselves from terrorists. Who do you think we may have to defend ourselves from?

Before I wrap up this round, let's talk about his last line really fast:

"I find some irony in you conclusion when you say "If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else", because the majority of the time it is guns that are putting us in danger in the first place..."

1. Please source where you are getting the information from about how a gun has independently harmed a human being. I would love to see this information.
2. If you're not understanding what I mean by the first objection, then this second objection is probably true: guns are inherently neutral objects. Me sitting next to a loaded gun doesn't make my life in danger of being shot. The gun can't fire at me on it's own. It's needs someone to pull the trigger in order for it to fire at me. This has serious implications to your line of logic. If guns aren't harmful in and of themselves, but rather require a mean-spirited individual to make them cause harm, are guns the actual source of the problem here? I'll let you sit on that thought for a bit. In the meantime, I'll wrap this round up and explain why I'm winning:

Conclusion:

First: He's conceded to two different societies (hunters and soldiers) who require guns in order to function. That means you have two different ways to vote con, without even needing to read the rest of the debate.
Second: His attacks against my syllogism haven't even been attacking my arguments...his point about guns killing kids only validates my point of guns having the potential to hurt people. As such my entire syllogism stands unrefuted, which is another reason to negate the resolution.
Third: Even if you don't like the logic of my syllogism, my entire syllogism has invovled why people, mainly military members but it applies to civilians as well, need guns. He's already conceded that military needs guns. Therefore you have to buy the syllogism anyway.
Fourth: Even if you think his attacks refute my arguments, I've already pointed out the vast number of internal inconsistencies with his arguments, as well as the logical fallacies they make.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
jakoplant1

Pro

Well, my opponents response hardly had any actual points concerning the resolution and mostly consisted of calling my response "dumb", so I'll try to pick out what I can from the second response...

*Clarification*) Concerning the abortion comments, I was merely inserting a personal comment that was blown way out of proportion by my opponent.

"To start with, he's comparing gun legalisation to abortion, which a) has no relevance to the resolution, b) has no relevance to each other, c) has absolutely no substance behind the claim other than just his say-so, and d) is just a complete ad hom as well ("Oh, you think we should be legalizing guns? I bet you're pro-life too -insert sneer-").

Then to the tail end of the statement where he's talking about how the want to not abort unborn children (i.e. being pro life), is in contradiction with wanting to legalize guns. It's just head-pounding-on-desk-until-your-skull-cracks-open dumb. There's no link between the two statements, no warrant to assume there's a link there, and just no logic behind the belief at all. It's just...bad. There's literally no other word for it other than bad. "

-Wow, I wrote a line voicing a comment that has nothing to do with the resolution, its just a side point xD

My opponent says

"A lot of people die in car wrecks every year, let's ban cars"

...when I first read this words failed me because of the sheer stupidity of this statement. Comparing cars to guns is like comparing simple life necessities to the TV. Cars are absolutely vital to the way this country works. If in one day all cars were taken away, the huge majority of the country would not be able to go to work or go anywhere further away than a few miles from where they were...where as if guns were taken away, the vast majority of the country would not be effected.
Me sitting next to a loaded gun doesn't make my life in danger of being shot.

Next my opponent says

"Even if this was in a civilian setting, the logic still holds. If terrorists are shooting at us, they have a lot harder time of actually hitting us if we're defending ourselves (i.e. shooting back)."

Try to remember that he is talking about a CIVILIAN setting. That means at our houses, at the mall, in school. Clearly, my opponent has Al Qaeda is in his back yard.


At the end of my opponents rant, he comments on my saying
"If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else", because the majority of the time it is guns that are putting us in danger in the first place..."
by saying
"Me sitting next to a loaded gun doesn't make** my life in danger of being shot."
No, it does not make your life in danger of being shot, but it certainly puts YOU in danger of someone walking up to you and shooting you, or of a child walking up to you and shooting themselves...in fact, why did you need the gun anyway (Except to defend yourself from the gun toting Al Qaeda member hiding in the shed).

**[put, endanger, 4th grade grammar...]

In conclusion, my opponent hardly states any actual reasons against my initial post and instead makes up stories about how he needs to defend himself from terrorists, who clearly threaten his life on a regular basis to the point that he NEEDS a gun and endanger his life (note, its not making his life in danger, it endangering). Just in case my opponent wanted to hone his English speaking skills, I included some excellent links where he can improve upon them:
http://www.education.com...
https://www.teachervision.com...

BTW: sorry for the last part, I actually do respect you, you seem like a very intelligent person. It was nice debating you.
Zaradi

Con

Well, I guess the one thing I have to thank my opponent for is placing the conduct point back up into the air. My insults to you would've given you a free point to pretty much any voter, but then you went and ad hom'd my grammar. Niiiiiiice.

There's really not a lot to respond to in this round. I'll just go over the key things in the round and how he still really hasn't refuted a single argument I've made.

To start with, look back to my point about the resolution only mandating that I prove that a society needs guns in order to win this round. Then go back to how my opponent has conceded that both hunters and soldiers need guns. That's two separate ways to vote con in this debate before you even read anything else.

Then, onto my syllogism argument. There's no actual refutation to the logic behind my syllogism. If anything he just nit-picks at the civilian aspect of my syllogism, but a) never refutes the first two premises which show that Al Qaeda have weapons and intentions to use them against us. This means that a terrorist attack is possible and b) never responds to the fact that the intial point of this syllogism was to be military-based. I said the logic holds for civilian life as well, but that was not my initial reasoning for making the syllogism.

And, on the analogies:

The car one first. He says that cars are essential for the country and guns are not but a) that's not true, the country ran fine before cars were invented, at best it's a luxury, b) he doesn't respond to the other analogy I make along the same lines (i.e. "People are being beaten with steel pipes, let's ban steel pipes."), and c) he doesn't respond to the internal logic of the analogy. He's saying that because people have died from gunshot wounds that we should ban guns, which is an illogical thing to say. People dying in car wrecks isn't a reason to ban cars, rather just be more cautious when driving. Likewise, people dying from guns isn't a reason to ban guns, rather practice more gun safety.

But let's take a look at his logic a little closer. If guns hurt people, therefore we should ban guns, let's take that one step further. Guns don't inherently hurt people, rather the bullets fired from guns are what hurt people. Let's ban bullets! Wait no that's not right, because firing pins are what cause the bullets to actually fire. Let's ban firing pins! Wait screw all of that. Let's go to the true source: people make guns. Let's ban people! No, that's not it solved either. God made people. Let's ban God!

You can see how the logic gets really, really dumb really, really fast.

So the debate is pretty simple:

1. He's conceded to two different societies that need guns (hunters and soldiers). That's two ways to vote for me right off the bat.
2. My syllogism for why society needs guns to protect us from terrorists stands still. That's a third reason to vote for me.
3. My opponent actually hasn't made a single argument this debate. He's spent his entire time trying to refute my arguments that he's yet to post one of his own. So even if you don't like my arguments, I'm the only one actually trying to win this round and prove their side, so you vote for me because there's nowhere you can vote for him.

That's four ways to vote for me. There's no argument that he's winning that shows why there isn't a society out there that needs guns. Therefore you vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
*Con, I apologize for referring to you as a girl in my vote comments. Your avatar image appeared to be a girl so I wrongly assumed that you are a girl, my mistake.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
jakoplant1ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Little overboard on the "dumb" aspersions, Con. If you hadn't made any in R3, I might have made conduct a tie due to the grammar issues Pro harped on, but then you just had to take it further. Anyway, it's an easy decision. Con does all the resolutional analysis, and points out that they are necessary for certain aspects of society. Without a solid response to that, Pro automatically loses the round. I feel there are a lot of logical fallacies in Con's argumentation, but Pro doesn't adequately respond to them either. Even if the resolution had been "Gun ownership should not be a fundamental right in American society," Con's argumentation is simply superior, though I fervently disagree with much of it.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
jakoplant1ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave Pro the conduct point because Con was rude in his diction, calling the pro "laughable" even after the pro complimented the con, calling her "intelligent," Con only responded with unnecessary sarcasm. But, to be honest, Con deserves the win because she kept pro chasing her opposition arguments, while pro never made his own independent arguments in support of the resolution.