The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

In the United States, private ownership of handguns/normal guns ought to be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 91259
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Con

The debate is for Lexus.

Resolution: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Definitons

handguns: small type of gun used for one hand

private owneship: anything that is owned from a person

banned: a stopped to, decline

Rules

1. Forfeiting is a loss of conduct

2. Sources have to be in the debate. If you can't, then you have to post your sources in the next round. Example: The debate is 8000 characters, and you wrote 7900 in your arguments. You need to put sources. Then, you have to post that you will put your sources in the next round, and in the next round, you will have to post your sources.

3. The BoP will be shared

4. No trolling

5. No kritiks

6. No semantics

7. No source wars

8. No source spams (over 20 sources a round.)

9. Failing to follow my rules, you lose all points to the opposing side. (1 is an exception.)


Thanks. I hope for a awesome debate! I thank Lexus for accepting this debate. Remember, there are no kritiks. If you do have any, you lose.
Lexus

Pro

Since the BoP will be shared, I will allow us to have an equal amount of rounds and just use this one for acceptance.

I think that for sake of clarity, we should formally define a Kritik. Jeff Miller wrote in an introductory publication for debate students, "The argument simply establishes that the fundamental assumptions made by the other team are false or irreversible. " This means there is an attacking of the other persons' fundamental assumptions within the round, whether that be capitalism or a gendered language representation.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con


I will write my opening arguments in this round. I thank Lexus for accepting. Why is my opponent even talking about kritiks when they are banned in this debate?


Framework




My framework will be mostly centered around self-defence.




Self-Defence: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as bycountering blows or overcoming an assailant [1].




Self Defence basically means that if you are getting harmed, then for self-defence, you can protect yourself. A gun is a very good example for this. I won’t be talking much about this right now, because I will have a whole new argument for this. My argument will be about that guns are the perfect example for self-defence.




More info of self-defence. : [2], [3], [4]






Arguments




Argument 1: Self-Defence




My first argument will be about self-defence, which is linked into the framework. I explained what self-defence is, and provided a definition of self-defence. I will expand more upon of this, and my argument will be about why private ownership of guns are the best example of self-defence, and why we should allow this.




My argument will be about why guns have good self-defence.




Using guns for self-defence is much. Nearly two million defensive gun uses per year [8].




Lets give a realistic example. You live in a home in the United States. A robber tries to come in your house, and is threatening you to give all the precious things you have, or the robber will kill you. You are getting threatened. You can shoot him with a gun. Many states and countries allow self-defence, so if you get harmed, then for self-defence, you can protect yourself with a gun. Without self-defence, and the use of a gun, the robber will take all of your things or kill you. You can use a knife, but it is much harder, and the robber will block it. So, for self-defence, which is allowed and encouraged, and gun is very good, so it should be legal for the private ownership of handguns, because handguns are more tiny, and quicker than big guns.




Because I told that private ownership of handguns is used for self-defence, which is allowed and is the best way to defend yourself, therefore, handguns should be allowed. Vote for Pro.




Argument 2: Waste of time




My second argument will be about banning this will be a waste of time.




Let’s first see how many guns Americans have.




“According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all [5]. This computes to 93 guns per 100 people. In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes." The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years.[6]”



Guns are used by too many people of the U.S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can’t check over 300 million guns.




Argument 3. Ecomony Impact




My last argument will be about the economy. Handguns are currently legal in the United States. The U.S. gets many money from gun companies. There are lots of gun companies in the U.S. and they all help the economy.




“All told, the firearms industry contributes more than $33 billion to the U.S. economy and supports about 220,000 jobs [7].”




That is tons. The U.S. government gets much money from the gun companies, and it is for tons of jobs




What if we ban this? Then this much people, all the people in the companies will have no job. They will be dependent for the government. This makes the economy lower. The few millions of homeless people need a job, and they need to depend on the government, also all the money, 33 billion dollars from the companies will not be earned, and will not go to the U.S. economy. This does a major economic impact for the U.S. Therefore, we should not ban firearms, or all guns in the U.S.




Also, if we ban guns, a black market will form. Guns will illegally be sold for 3 or 4 times it’s cost. It’s bad because, it is illegal, it is for expensive, and the ban is useless. So, this is only good for people who sell it illegally, and bad to everyone else.





Conclusion




I have shown successfully why guns are useful, they are useful for self-defence, and why a gun ban is useless, because there are so many guns in the U.S, 300 million, and some will still have them which makes banning useless. I showed if you ban guns, it will do a major harm to the economy. I showed one good thing about guns, and 2 bad things about gun banning. Therefore, it is 3 good things about guns, therefore, vote for CON!

Sources

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...




[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...




[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...



[4] http://www.alljujitsu.com...

[5] http://www.npr.org...




[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...



[7]http://www.theblaze.com...


[8] http://www.guncite.com...

Lexus

Pro

This round is solely for my constructive, I will provide rebuttals in the next round.

I am a suicide bomber. Let Fernando elaborate in great detail:
The poet, irremediably split between exaltation and vulgarity ... functions as a contaminant for philosophy ... The poet as genius continues to threaten and fascinate, menacing the philosopher with the beyond of knowledge. Philosophy cringes ... It is not a relationality that seeks to impose a particular, single, meaning, reading upon another ... the borders are not drawn, the limits are not set ... there are always rules to seeing ... poetry ... risk[s] the exchange that [it] might expect but [is] at the same unable to count on ... Once the poem is set off, the poet remains completely blind to its effects. Once the bomb is set off, the suicide bomber is completely blind to its effects ... Perhaps it is the fact that (s)he remains an enigma that is her gift to us. It is this refusal to be understood, to be subsumed under any existing conception, to be flattened, exchanged, reproduced, that is her gift. And in that same spirit, it is not a gift that can be understood—this is not a gift that one can bring to the return-counter at the shop, to be exchanged for something else, something more palatable, something easier, something more comfortable, more comforting. This is a gift that is unknowable, in full potential, always possible; perhaps always a gift that is to come ... This is the point where the eternal question of the serpent, that of ‘what did (s)he mean’, returns to haunt us, along with the ... question of Lenin, that of “what is to be done?” ... Hence, each answer, each ‘definition’ to the question can only be accomplished as a more or less provisory, more or less violent arresting of a dynamic that is interminable, but never simply indeterminate or infinite.

I do lots of things. Among blowing myself up, I also promote an ethic of dissolution from dominant structures -- I remove myself from the topic as a means of breaking it down. Poetry prevails.

Not a star will remain in the night.

The night itself will not remain.

I will die and with me the sum

Of the intolerable universe.

I’ll erase the pyramids, the coins,

The continents and all the faces.

I’ll erase the accumulated past.

I’ll make dust of history, dust of dust.

Now I gaze at the last sunset.

I am listening to the last bird.

I bequeath nothingness to no-one.

Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

I will make my rebuttals this round.

Rebuttals

My opponent addresses a quote. This is not useful, because first, he didn't quote or even cite his sources. Second, this is realy off-topic. He does not talk about hanguns or normal guns at all. This isn't even an arugment. The quote is about a gift is unknowable, blah, blah, blah, nothing about the actual topic. This is an off-topic argument, and the argument is rebutted.

My opponent creates a poem. I will quote it here.

"Not a star will remain in the night.

The night itself will not remain.

I will die and with me the sum

Of the intolerable universe.

I’ll erase the pyramids, the coins,

The continents and all the faces.

I’ll erase the accumulated past.

I’ll make dust of history, dust of dust.

Now I gaze at the last sunset.

I am listening to the last bird.

I bequeath nothingness to no-one."


I think the poem is about dying, and your last day. It is abotu everything destroyed, the last things he looks at, dying, etc. This again, is off-topic. This does not talk about handguns, or normal guns, therefore this argument is rebutted, or basically not a argument.

Conclusion

My opponent' arguments are all off-topic. They aren't really arugments after all. A poem, and a quote, both nothing related to this topic. If anyone who wants to debate this seriously want to do this, I invite them so. K's are banned, but this is even worser than a K. At least a K is on topic. My opponent's arguments are all rebutted, or off-topic if you want to call it like that, therefore you know the right choice. Vote Con.
Lexus

Pro

We return to the question of Lenin, that of "what is to be done?"

I won't spoil the secret for my opponent for what is to be done, hopefully they can figure it out by themselves!
(Hint: there is no private ownership in death!)
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Con

I will quote my opponent's round.

"We return to the question of Lenin, that of "what is to be done?"

I won't spoil the secret for my opponent for what is to be done, hopefully they can figure it out by themselves!
(Hint: there is no private ownership in death!)"

I will answer my opponent's round. "What is to be done?" is a very vague question. In can be in any situation, and my opponent proivdes nothing. It can be many different things, depending on the situation. I will say, depending on the situation.

My opponent says that the secret should not be spoiled. I already said that, it depends on the situation. My opponent should make clear arguments, so the voters should understand, and I am pretty sure that the voters won't understand. My opponent is still off-topic, and does not say anything about handguns. My opponent cannot make new arguments because I can't refute them.

My opponent's hints are bad. My opponent says that there is no private ownership of death. This is confusing. The topic is not about death, it is about the private ownership of handguns. But my opponent does not argue this, he is arguing a truly different topic.

I am very dissapointed on how this debate went. My opponent did not make any clear arguments, or any arguments, and did not refute my case. I extend my case, and my rebuttals. Therefore, vote CON!!!

Lexus

Pro

Only in death is there agency -- only in death can we ever liberate ourselves.

Through death, we own nothing, and through death we affirm. Poetics is pretty cool, it allows us to remove ourselves from the structure of debate through killing ourselves.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
It's criticizing the notion that anything should be "not banned," which is an assumption the topic makes in that if a topic says "X should be banned," it makes a distinction between "banned stuff" and "legal stuff." Blurring the line between "banned" and "legal" stuff removes that distinction, hence kritiking the resolution.
Posted by Lexus 8 months ago
Lexus
Anyways, I respectfully disagree is all :p
Posted by Lexus 8 months ago
Lexus
What is it kritiking?
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Irdk. But "ban everything" is definitely a kritik.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Then I guess it's a kritik. If the text is like this:

"Any extremely leftist policy will cause a GOP win, and GOP winning is harmful to the United States; the Rez is one such leftist policy, so vote Neg."

I assume it would be a kritik.
Posted by Lexus 8 months ago
Lexus
Yes, exactly...
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Lexus, by "non-unique," I mean the *same* disad text must apply to all those resolutions.
Posted by Lexus 8 months ago
Lexus
Tejretics,
I talked about the Politics Disadvantage, which is undeniably a disadvantage in all policy circles. Is that not a kritik?
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
The *identical* formulation of the disadvantage should apply to more than one resolution. Only then is it "non-unique." Here, "everyone should kill themselves" means "ban the use of anything," which is obviously a kritik.
Posted by Lexus 8 months ago
Lexus
Tejretics,
is the Politics Disadvantage a kritik then, because it is very nonunique to many policy affirmatives! :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 8 months ago
famousdebater
fire_wingsLexusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argues the points regarding self defense, waste of time and the economic impact. Pro begins by providing a strange, poorly formulated argument with no impact analysis. It later becomes clear that she is formulating an argument that everybody ought to commit suicide. Whilst Con did misunderstand Pro's argument and failed to refute it. Since Pro's argument are not explained in relation to the resolution and their impacts are not explained, the arguments made hold no water. Con, however makes clear and relevant arguments to negate the resolution with clear impacts explained. Since Pro also made no attempt to refute the opposing case (other than through the indirect kritik which would have negated the arguments if it had been explained further and been made more relevant), I am given a clear winner in this debate and that is Con. Ergo, I award Con the arguments points.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
fire_wingsLexusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The job of the debaters is to affirm or negate the resolution, and to do nothing else. Removing oneself from the resolution does nothing whatsoever to uphold a burden of persuasion. Pro initially argues something incoherent, and then eventually manages to craft that argument into an affirmative kritik (yes, there is such a thing as an affirmative kritik) - that everyone should kill themselves. But Pro fails to explain why the government should legislate on death (which is the only scenario in which "everyone should die" links to a gun ban), only that people should make the choice to die (I'm sure Lexus will talk about how this wasn't really a kritik, but that's irrelevant because her argument does nothing to affirm). In contrast, Con has actual arguments (guns are used in self-defense, and a gun ban will cost a lot) that negate the resolution and fulfill their BOP. All Pro does is distract from the topic. Thus, I vote Con.