The Instigator
TheBigthink
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 92717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheBigthink

Pro

Open debate, please let me know before you introduce your statement that you have accepted. This is my first time so I'll leave the format a lot more broad.

After this, I will introduce my argument and you may introduce yours along with some points.

If you do not fully understand the topic, allow me to clarify. I am stating that all the shooting massacres are mainly caused by the selling of guns in the U.S.A in the first place, and that they deserve to be banned.
SJM

Con

I accept homie
Debate Round No. 1
TheBigthink

Pro

Firstly, I apologize for the typo on the title

I would like to begin by arguing that gun rights are the main cause of mass killings by handheld weapons because none of this (Orlando shooting) would have occurred if the gun was not present at the killers hand. His parents explained to the media that he was not a terrorist, just a homophobe, meaning if the guns were not an easy get-to he probably would have never gotten his hands on it to begin with.

You have the option of keeping this debate in a more broad and general subject, meaning a general statement that "guns should not be banned" rather than mentioning it all based off the events of the Orlando shooting.
SJM

Con

"I am stating that all the shooting massacres are mainly caused by the selling of guns in the U.S.A in the first place, and that they deserve to be banned." I want the voters to understand what this means, he is arguing that ALL SHOOTING massacres are mainly caused by the selling of guns, AND should be banned. So what my opponent has to prove is that every single shooting massacre is MAINLY caused by the selling of guns IN THE U.S. Now, to clarify i am going to provide some definitions. Shoot- kill or wound (a person or animal) with a bullet or arrow. Therefore meaning that bow and arrow massacres count as shooting massacres. Also, massacres meaning- the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or ANIMALS, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. Not only this but my opponent would have to prove that the selling of guns is the MOST common denominator, in that he will have to prove it"s more than what I think is the most common denominator, which is the want of shooting. Regarding the Orlando example, I see no evidence to back up the assertion that the gun was gotten from a seller, and it took place in the U.S. Also one instance does not warrant your claim that it's the most common in massacres.
Debate Round No. 2
TheBigthink

Pro

Before we continue the debate, I want the understand my opponents stance on the issue and I quote; "it"s more than what I think is the most common denominator, which is the want of shooting." Originally, I had wanted for an opponent whom is pro-gun and believes that it is not the gun rights in America that is mainly causing such disasters. Regardless, I shall continue but please provide me with some background about where you stand.

Let me begin with my original statement, my opponent brings a good point about there being "arrows". Let's not lie to ourselves, by shooting, many of us recognize it as a gun shooting. Instances with bow and arrows have certain classifications.

My opponent has stated that he believes the most common denominator of shootings are generally "the want of shooting". But there are steps until the desirer gets to his wish, and the main thing that would get in ones way is getting the gun, which was not the issue for Omar Mateen in the Orlando shooting (Daly & Harris, 2016).

CON argues that " one instance does not warrant your claim " yet he himself knows there are many other instances. Shooters in the US obtain their guns legally and that is one thing the United States should not allow.

Sources:
http://www.thedailybeast.com...
SJM

Con

Ok, first I will summarize what my opponent has done, which is he started by explaining what he thought was going to happen but didn"t happen however what I am saying is still valid. My opponent then asks what is my stance on the gun issue however there is no need for me to provide it and it has no need to be in the debate as long as I successfully attack the resolution. My personal beliefs have no matter in a debate, I may have no stance and still win against the resolution. The only thing that my stance would bring to the table is vulnerability to ad homs by my opponent.

Now to his points, his first argument is "let"s not lie to ourselves, by shooting, many of us recognize it as a gun shooting." EVEN if we all knew what was meant by it that does not change the fact that bow and arrows take part in the resolution. My opponent is essentially trying to defend himself by saying "you know what I mean" even though by definition bow and arrows do count as shooting, thus what I say is still valid. And I also when accepting the challenge, I was not a mind reader and did not know that he meant that, but that shouldn"t have been a problem if he had limited the resolution enough to what he was aiming for.

Next, my opponent misunderstood and it may be my fault so I will clarify. What I mean by " want of shooting" is not shooting, the desire to shoot. For example, before I eat something I would have to have the desire to eat it, and you"re essentially saying the most common debater is utensils. So, I would say before most people buy guns to shoot, they would have a desire to shoot the gun.

Lastly, my opponent claims to read my mind by saying I know many other instances, but I do not know of other instances and he would have accept that.

My opponent has still yet to prove that the selling of guns is the MOST common denominator of shooting massacres, and that they deserve to be banned, keep in mind you have to prove both not just one in order to win the debate. The only thing he did to back this up was state one incident in which the shooter bought a gun.
Debate Round No. 3
TheBigthink

Pro

There is a bit of misunderstanding clearly. What my opponent has failed to mention is his GENERAL statement/argument on the issue. What I am failing to understand (maybe it is my mistake) is what you are standing for.

To one of the point CON has mentioned; "I would say before most people buy guns to shoot, they would have a desire to shoot the gun." I would like to state that originally what the desirer felt in the beginning was caused because he/she KNEW that they themselves were able to obtain the guns to begin with, people in countries with no guns never feel the desire, they are only driven by media. So maybe something the U.S.A could work on is what mentality is put onto people that can potentially cause harm?
SJM

Con

Now my opponent thinks that I need a stance in order to win this debate but all I need to do is stop you from proving the resolution. Meaning even if I don"t make any points, and if you still haven"t proved the resolution I still win. My opponent has the burden of proof and I don"t and if my opponent tries to switch it, it would be a fallacy. To make it easier, what I am standing for is whatever that stops my opponent from proving his claim.

Next, here my opponent"s counter argument is that people only get the desire to shoot when they know they are able to obtain a gun, but let"s all remember the desire to shoot includes bows and arrows and so the shooting massacres including arrows did not have anything to do with selling of guns, but did have to do with the desire to shoot.
Debate Round No. 4
TheBigthink

Pro

TheBigthink forfeited this round.
SJM

Con

In conclusion, my argument has been many but mainly around the desire to shoot being more prevalent in shooting massacres than guns. I have also refuted each of his arguments and urge everyone to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.