The Instigator
TheQuestionMark
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Guns should be universally banned

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 3 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 80177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

TheQuestionMark

Pro

R1 acceptance
Debate Round No. 1
TheQuestionMark

Pro

C1) Suicides

If guns were to be banned, this would greatly decrease the lives taken by suicide.

“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.” [1]

When a person possesses a gun, they are more likely to commit suicide, (3 times more likely) [2] .This is because when someone is feeling depressed, they think of the gun sitting in the closet, and a way out of their pain. This causes them to think about committing suicide, and some of the time they do. When you eliminate the gun from the situation, they don’t think about that way out, and are less likely to take that way out.

Suicide by firearm is also more likely to successful; more than half of all suicides are done by firearm [3] and 85% of these are fatal [4]. If a gun is taken out of the situation, the troubled person may not commit suicide at all, or be forced to use a less lethal method. By using a less lethal method, his/her chances of surviving the incident rise dramatically. Now that the person is more likely to survive the suicide attempt, they can get help and receive treatment for their depression, which cures them of it 80-90% of the time [5].

By banning guns, you give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the likelihood that they will attempt suicide and save thousands of lives in the process.

C2) Homicide

Enacting a ban on firearms would dramatically decrease the amount of homicides.

Firearms are a criminal’s favorite tool; easily concealed, fast, fatal and easy. No wonder of the 12,765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with firearms, 69.4% of all homicides. [6]

Taking away the murderer’s most effective weapon forces murderer’s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.

C3) Accidents

A firearm is an extremely dangerous object. An accidental bump, or brush of the trigger unleashes a high-powered bullet that destroys everything in its path. Firearms claim thousands of accidental deaths every year.

"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…” [7]

Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave anyone involved with the act a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life. If guns were to be banned, this would never happen again.

Conclusion

Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives, by reducing the amount of homicides, the amount of suicides, and the amount of deaths caused by firearm accidents.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... (1)

http://www.thedailybeast.com... (2)

http://lostallhope.com... (3)

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... (4)

http://www.save.org... (5)

http://www.infoplease.com... (6)

http://www.thedailybeast.com...; (7)
Jonbonbon

Con

Hello to all my readers. I have just one point to make:

My opponent plagiarized his entire round from Hayd's opening argument in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

While he won't get an F in the class for this, he still does not deserve to even have his last round considered. Since that argument is not made by him, yet is presented by him, he automaticall forfeits that last round. Because he foreits that last round, as con I win simply by disagreeing with him.

Plagiarism is not tolerated in debates, and this was just a blatant violation of that rule.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Thank you Whiteflame
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Trexcalibur// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Pro had plagiarized his entire argument, so conduct goes to Con. But Con didn't even try to argue the points, while Pro did. So arguments and sources go to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter fails to analyze any of the arguments given in order to decide his allocation of source points, merely asserting that one side didn't "argue the points" without examining what Pro did right to affirm the resolution. (2) While a voter does have the choice of determining how much plagiarism affects a given debater to a degree, this voter appears to treat this plagiarism as entirely an issue of conduct. However, as it is literally the only argument this debater gave, it must result in an automatic loss, both on arguments and conduct, not to mention that the plagiarized sourcing should be ignored on the same basis. A blatant rule violation like this needs to be addressed, and the voter appears to reward Pro for it.
************************************************************************
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I know, you're not going to change your mind whether I'm right or not. You actually don't care. Is it because you don't want to be wrong?
Posted by Trexcalibur 1 year ago
Trexcalibur
Well you cant change my vote
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
And btw TheQuestionMark got banned pretty quickly for this. ib case that helps you understand the severity.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Actually a debate is exactly like an essay. They're both informative speeches/papers meant to convince someone of a point and provide information. The only difference is a debate involves a counter paper, which actually makes the plagiarism more serious because it harms the intellectual discussion. Even further from that, this debate wasn't me versus TheQuestionMark. It was me versus Hayd who wasn't actually the one posting. If literally none of the information or words came from him, then I have no idea why you would attribute points to him for those words.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
I agree with Trexcalibur. If you would have presented an argument, it would have helped. I still think Jon won, but only for conduct.
Posted by Trexcalibur 1 year ago
Trexcalibur
You shouldn't base a debate on how the material is demonstrated. It is based on defending a specific point in your arguments. It is different in turning in a paper because you are arguing, trying to prove someone wrong, in a debate, while in essays you try to provide information, which will make plagiarism more wrong
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Trexcalibur, that's like a student turning in a paper they didn't right and just taking ten points off for plagiarizing. If you plagiarize then the plagiarized material does not count as being part of the debate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
He's talking about what I said in my round.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Baker532 1 year ago
Baker532
TheQuestionMarkJonbonbonTied
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: Even despite the plagiarism, Pro's (or Hayd's) argument showed blatant disregard for non-supporting facts and statistics.
Vote Placed by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
TheQuestionMarkJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: For circumstances as these, to be on the safer side, it would have been for the best if CON too had displayed some efforts to make a case for her stance. Now I'm in a rather tough position cause I'm unable to give any argument points to either of the two. PRO obviously has shown poor conduct in CP'ing arguments from an old debate hence Con gets conduct. Rest all tied.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
TheQuestionMarkJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism, Pro copied Hayd's argument from an earlier debate word for word, right down to the sources.