The Instigator
TheResistance
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

In the United States, private ownership of handguns 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 3 votes the winner is...
TheResistance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,602 times Debate No: 84336
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

TheResistance

Pro

This is a LD Debate challenge! We will debate LD Style and it is value based.
Rules:LD RULES;not same format
Order
Challenge
Acceptance
Aff post case
Neg post case
Rebuttals on Neg' case and new points
Rebuttals on Aff's case and new points
Aff defense
Neg defense
Final Focus for Aff(NO NEW POINTS)
Final Focus for Neg(NO NEW POINTS)
BOP is shared
Bias should not imply for voters. Vote on the content only.
No forfeits
Lexus

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheResistance

Pro

I affirm the resolution resolved,
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
To clarify, I will define the following terms with Collins English Dictionary.
Private Ownership-the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body
Handguns-a firearm that can be held, carried, and fired with one hand, such as a pistol

Value: Social Justice
It is because of this my value of today"s debate is Social Justice, as defined by:
Ferree SM, PhD, Rev. William. "Introduction to Social Justice." (1997): 35,43.
"Common Good must be a primary object of solicitude.The Common Good is not a means for any particular interests;it is a good so great that very frequently private rights"even inviolable private rights"cannot be exercised until it is safeguarded.
It might be good in order to make the notion of Social Justice clearer, to compare its characteristics with those of individual justice.The first great mark of Social Justice is that it cannot be performed by individuals as individuals, but only by individuals as members of groups."

We need social justice because it is important to uphold the common good in today"s society. Upholding the common good is the most important as it benefits the society.

Standard:Infinite Regression
My value criterion for today"s debate is infinite regression, which is a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 holding with many support requires of P2, then P3, and so on if P1 holds. If P1 must hold, then the sequence of P2, P3, etc must hold. If one of these events fall, then the whole chain falls.

In order to achieve social justice we have to have interconnected infinite regression in the face of banning private ownership of handguns, which is what the affirmative provides. This gives access to the protection of the common good that democracy provides, thus, maximizing justice, reasoning, and the quality of life.

Observation 1: The resolution talks about handguns only. Thus, the evidence in today"s debate must only talk about if handguns in private ownership should be banned or not, and no other guns, like assault rifles, sniper rifles, etc.

Observation 2: The affirmative does not have the burden to answer for the handguns already sold, and how the ban will affect these guns. Instead, the affirmative only has the burden to prove why we need to ban handguns currently.
Contention 1: Individualism destroys the environment

Note:Individualism is a theory of favoring freedom of individuals
KATRINA FISCHER KUH,Duke Law Journal,March 2012
"Emerging environmental problems reveal with new clarity the harms that individual(ism) inflict on the environment. Individual(ism) lie(s) at the core of both the climate-change problem. Individual(ism)s directly pollute(s) a range of environmental media in significant volumes; indeed, individual(ism) (is)responsible for approximately "a third of the chemicals that form low-level ozone or smog."Four "types of constraint[s]" operate on individual(ism)and thus offer potential paths for reorienting environmental law and policy to better capture or control harms from individual(ism) that directs behaviors by threatening sanctions; social norms; markets; and architecture, or features of the world.A growing body of legal scholarship recognizes the environmental significance of individual(ism)critiques the failure of environmental law and policy to speak directly to individuals as sources of environmental harm, and suggests and evaluates strategies for capturing individual(ism)"s harms going forward."

Analysis: As seen individualism harms the environment, and it is responsible for many chemicals and harms social functions. Thus, we cannot let individualism become unrestricted, and we need to limit the right to bear arms for the better of the group to protect the environment.

Subpoint A: Individualism harming the environment can cause for the next Ecological Crunch
Simpson, David. "Scarcity And Growth Revisited: Natural Resources And The Environment In The New Millennium." 2005.
"Many natural scientists now warn that we are entering a "sixth extinction crisis" caused by the increasing dominance of a single species: Homo sapiens, the numbers we cite above concerning the growth of human population and our economies may have a darker side(using individualism). Peter Vitousek and his colleagues (1997) has estimated that humanity appropriates either directly or indirectly 40 percent of the world"s net primary productivity. Other indices of our impact are equally alarming: we note earlier the accelerated extinction of species. Biodiversity loss stems from many causes. In addition to natural threats from competition and predation, a number of human-induced factors threaten other species.Many biologists believe, however, that the greatest threat to biodiversity today comes from (individualism) the conversion of natural habitats to alternative human(ism) use."

Analysis: These are the causes of individualism. It will lead to the next Ecological crunch and leads to many species going extinct while not benefiting the common good.

Subpoint B: Individualism violates the infinite regression of the society
Bitman,mark,"What is the purpose of society",2015
"Shouldn't adequate shelter, clothing, food and health care be universal? Isn"t everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn"t we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?"

Thus, the infinite regression of society is simple
Provide the well-being of citizens
Provide care for all citizens
Work together to prevent self destruction
These steps result into a happy society
Individualism over guns violates the 2nd step, thus breaking the society, which the Neg is violating. My value of infinite regression achieves this because if we restrict the right to own handguns, I am following the process of the society, thus achieving the common good using my value of social justice.

Contention 2:Individualism leads to a number of social and psychological disadvantages.
Note:Individualism is a theory of favoring freedom of individuals
GREG SCOTT, JOSEPH CIARROCHI, & FRANK P. DEANE
"As expected, higher levels of individualism within an individualistic society were associated with a number of social and psychological disadvantages. Idiocentrics(Individualists) had smaller and less satisfying social support networks, low emotional competence, poorer mental health indicators and lower intentions to seek help in times of need.
(Individualism)did not moderate the link between stress and depression. That is, (individualists) tended to feel more hopeless than allocentrics regardless of how much social support they had. Finally, social support (amount and satisfaction) appeared to mediate the relationship between idiocentrism and, hopelessness and suicide ideation,"

Analysis: Individualism causes for various emotional and health factors, and thus we should not prioritize guns; we must care for ourselves first before we get in rights. My value of infinite regression achieves this because we know that individualism is bad; we must follow the path of the society to fix these social and psychological issues. This leads for the fix into the social and psychological issues, thus achieving my value of social justice.

Conclusion: In conclusion, prioritizing the rights of guns harms the environment, and mental and emotional health. My value of social justice achieves this because we cannot prioritize the right of guns; we must prioritize the common good. My value of infinite regression helps this because we must follow the path of the society to achieve the common good, which the neg is violating. It is because of these reasons and many more I strongly urge a aff ballot.

Sources Used:
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...
http://www.cesj.org...
Simpson, David. "Scarcity And Growth Revisited: Natural Resources And The Environment In The New Millennium." 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.acceptandchange.com...
Lexus

Con

I negate the resolved: in the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Before I begin, a note on burdens: since the affirmation has a changed status quo in their advocacy, they have the majority of the BoP (although the BoP is shared). They need to prove a significant reason to affirm, and the decision for today's round (if voting in affirmation) has to show a significant area in which they won.

My value is that of justice, defined simply as giving each their due; consequently,
arbitrary actions are always unjust in relation to the subject because arbitrary action cannot be giving one something that they are due. This is true because arbitrary is defined as “based on random choice rather than any reason or system”. Thus, my standard for today’s round is minimising arbitrary action. This is the best standard because it links back directly to justice, as it gives each their due without clouding the relationship to justice. Moreover, minimizing arbitrary action is a preferable standard because it is weighable; the results of arbitrary action, or lack thereof, are noticeable impacts that can be evaluated in-round.

Therefore I have my sole contention: the affirmative is arbitrary in nature, devoid of some deeper ‘truth’ - any evidence that they claim to hold as important can be interpreted as the exact opposite of what they claim. They meander through the void, saying that they see light when all they do is remember or simulate its existence. They feign truth in an attempt to disguise their knowledge that we can’t ever grasp truth.

Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation:
  • Is any given bombing in Italy the work of leftist extremists, or extreme-right provocation, or a centrist mise-en-scène to discredit all extreme terrorists and to shore up its own failing power, or again, is it a police-inspired scenario and a form of blackmail to public security? All of this is simultaneously true, and the ... objectivity of the facts does not put an end to this vertigo of interpretation. That is, we are in a logic of simulation, which no longer has anything to do with a logic of facts and an order of reason. Simulation is characterized by a precession of the model, of all the models based on the merest fact - the models come first, their circulation, orbital like that of the bomb, constitutes the genuine magnetic field of the event. The facts no longer have a specific trajectory, they are born at the intersection of models, a single fact can be engendered by all the models at once. This anticipation, this precession, this short circuit, this confusion of the fact with its model (no more divergence of meaning, no more dialectical polarity, no more negative electricity, implosion of antagonistic poles), is what allows each time for all possible interpretations, even the most contradictory - all true, in the sense that their truth is to be exchanged, in the image of the models from which they derive, in a generalized cycle.
Further, Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation:
  • To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn't have. One implies a presence, the other an absence. But it is more complicated than that because simulating is not pretending: "Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed and make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms" (Littré). Therefore, pretending, or dissimulating, leaves the principle of reality intact: the difference is always clear, it is simply masked, whereas simulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary." Is the simulator sick or not, given that he produces "true" symptoms? Objectively one cannot treat him as being either ill or not ill. Psychology and medicine stop at this point, forestalled by the illness's henceforth undiscoverable truth. For if any symptom can be "produced," and can no longer be taken as a fact of nature, then every illness can be considered as simulatable and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning since it only knows how to treat "real" illnesses according to their objective causes.
Zerubavel 1994
  • But how could there not be arbitrariness? Nature presents [things] … without firmly established divisions. Everything shades off into everything else by imperceptible nuances. And if, on this ocean of objects surrounding us, there should appear a few that seem to break through the surface and to dominate the rest like the crest of a reef, they merely owe this advantage to … conventions … that have nothing to do with the physical arrangement of beings. I have thus far drawn a deliberately one-sided picture of reality as an array of insular entities neatly separated from one another by great divides. Such discontinuity, however, is not as inevitable as we normally take it to be. It is a pronouncedly mental scalpel that helps us carve discrete mental slices out of reality: “You get the illusion that [entities] are just there and are being named as they exist. But they can be … organized quite differently depending on how the knife moves … It is important to see this knife for what it is and not to be fooled into thinking that [entities] are the way they are just because the knife happened to cut it up that way. It is important to concentrate on the knife itself. The scalpel, of course, is a social scalpel. It is society that underlies the way we generate meaningful mental entities. Reality is not made up of insular chunks unambiguously separated from one another by sharp divides, but, rather, of vague, blurred-edge essences that often “spill over” into one another. It normally presents itself not in black and white, but, rather, in subtle shades of gray, with mental twilighty zones as well as intermediate essences connecting entities. Segmenting it into discrete islands of meaning usually rests on some social convention, and most boundaries are, therefore, mere social artifacts. As such, they often vary from one society to another as well as across historical periods within each society. Moreover, the precise location-not to mention the very existence-of such mental partitions is often disputed within any given society. There is more than one way to carve discrete chunks out of a given continuum, and different cultures indeed mold out of the same reality quite different archipelagos of meaning. While all cultures, for example, distinguish the edible from the inedible or the young from the old, they usually differ from one another in where they draw the lines between them.
Let’s look at the story so far:
There exist no ways to justify what we think to be true. The simulation is at play when we look at the discourse happening in this debate - we are not there and cannot be there when something happens, so we rely on sources, who blur the lines between the true and the false.
The delineation that we find between the true and the false are inherently wrong for two reasons:
  • There exist no lines to pick from that are naturally occurring
  • It is just our social lens that dictates what we think to be true - there is no inherent meaning.

Therefore, we are only advocating for arbitrary action within the affirmative world ... arbitrary action is inherently bad because it dissociates itself from my value of justice, something that I think my opponent will agree with me in saying is something necessary for societal wellfare and for a just system to be in place.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
TheResistance

Pro

Burdens:
I do not have a changed status quo. I am just pointing out that individualism is bad. Secondly, the BoP is shared. My burden of proof is not taken more than yours. Thus, you have broken a rule, thus I win today's debate.
Let's go to her value
She values justice. I have 2 main responses.
1.She defines justice as each given her due. Thus, she is focusing on the common good of the people, because everyone is due the right to live in a peaceful society, thus her value supports my case.
2. Each are giving their due to live in a peaceful society, as defined:
Bittman,mark,"What is the purpose of society",2015
"Isn't everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn"t we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?"
So if everyone is given their 'due,' they are prioritizing the well-being of society's citizens, which the aff is promoting towards common good.
Let's now go to her value of minimizing arbitrary actions. I have 2 main responses to this.
1. We can never know what is an arbitrary action because justification relies on many things. Nothing has intrinsic value.
Pollock 75 http://johnpollock.us...
"To justify a belief one must appeal to a further belief. This means beliefs can be [held] without being able to justify them for each justified belief there is an infinite regress of justification. On this theory there is no rock bottom of justification. Justification just meanders in and out through our network of beliefs, stopping nowhere."
Thus she is not exactly minimizing arbitrary action because we can never really justify anything. We can never justify if an action is true or not.
2. She agrees with me that there are no ways to justify. So how is she following her criterion of minimizing arbitrary action? How is not banning guns from private ownership not an arbitrary action? So far, I have proven that banning guns from private ownership is NOT an arbitrary action because gun rights are linked to individualism, which is harming the environment, leading to the next ecological crunch, thus harming society, so banning guns from private ownership is not an arbitrary action.
Let's move down to her sole contention: The affirmative is arbitrary in nature, devoid of some deeper "truth" - any evidence that they claim to hold as important can be interpreted as the exact opposite of what they claim. I have some responses to this.
1. Just because she proves that everything is not true, does that mean my claims fall? Ok. Then what about her claims? She says that what we find within the true and FALSE(her side) are wrong because there are no lines, and it is just our social lens.
2. How is proving anything is arbitrary is gaining her advantage? According to her, owning guns could be arbitrary for all we know, thus her contention is gaining me some offense.
3. Sources blur the line. Ok. Then your sources might blur the line because they might blur the lines between the true and false.
4. She says that the simulation is at play when everything is occur. Ok. Then the simulation is at her play when she even lists these events. The facts she presents no longer have a 'specific trajectory.'
Let's add some points to my case.
1. Capitalism(private ownership) is bad.
Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and Inequality, 2013
"Inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the capitalist world.Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it -- because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords. Despite what many on the right think, however, this is a problem for everybody, not just those who are doing poorly or those who are ideologically committed to egalitarianism -- because if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large."

Analysis: Capitalism, where property is privately owned, is seen by my evidence as inequal, allowing the rich to only benefit and the rest to fall, and also created a huge poverty difference and affecting the society as a negative impact. Thus, we cannot use private ownership, and my value of social justice does this because it promotes the common good, and with my standard of infinite regression we can achieve this.

Let's make another link.
Intosh, Mac. "Capitalism And Genocide." Internationalist Perspective. January 03, 2000. Web. December 07, 2015.
"Mass death, and genocide, the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human beings, have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima are
where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass death. The ethnic cleansing which has been unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo, the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the mass death to which Chechnya has been subjected, the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent, are so many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production enters a new millennium."

Analysis: Capitalism, where handguns are privately owned, is seen by my evidence as very destructive and leads to genocide, mass killings, and wars. Thus capitalism cannot be allowed in today"s society. My standard achieves this because if we socially use social knowledge to kick out capitalism to achieve the common good by my value of social justice.

The cost is too expensive
Ludwig, Jens. "The Costs Of Gun Violence Against Children." May 08, 2012.
"(T)he national costs of gun violence are roughly $100 billion per year, with $15 billion or more attributable to gun violence against youth. An important conclusion, then, is that the costs of gun violence are far larger than the public health community"s traditional COI approach would suggest, and that these costs affect everyone in America. But another important conclusion is that while the costs of gun violence"or equivalently, the benefits of reducing gun violence"are large, they are not infinite."

Analysis: This evidence shows that handguns cause tremendous violence in the country, and cost money. This is not good for the society because we will need this money elsewhere to benefit the people in need in our society to benefit everyone.Thus, we should ban these handguns from private ownership.

Handguns promote sexism
Isabel Evans,The Sly, Sexist Tactics of the American Gun Industry ,2014
"But what really bothers me is the narrative that guns "empower women." The website for NRA Women claims to tell "stories of empowered women like you." Pistol Packing Ladies, a female only shooting club offering NRA classes, has the inspiring slogan "empowering women one round at a time." And we even have the word of Greg Gutfield of FOX News that "guns do more for female empowerment than modern feminism." I don"t buy this bromide. Telling a woman that she needs to have a pink gun to have power belies real, positive female empowerment. Women can feel powerful and strong on their own, thank you Greg. And also, there"s something inherently troubling in the connection here between power and violence. Even if gun clubs and ranges say it"s all fun and games and sports, guns are weapons that can also kill (surprise!). So does a woman need to embrace violence in order to feel power? "

Analysis: Women are shown to have an obligation of "Sexism to own a handgun to get 'empowered'" This is very sexist, and offends women, thus leading to violence.

Guns lead to suicide

Miller, Matthew. "Guns And Suicide In The United States." 2008.
The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling.3 There are at least a dozen U.S. case"control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households.

Analysis: Handguns lead to more suicide rates. Thus we need them banned to totally decrease.

Link: Suicide HURTS the economy
CDC 2008
"Suicide costs society over $44.6 billion a year in combined medical and work loss costs.
The average suicide costs $1,164,499."

Anaylsis: This costs 1 billion dollars! We could use this money elsewhere.

For these reasons and many more, I strongly urge a pro ballot.

`TheResistance
Lexus

Con

Since we are allowed to give new points, I will be addressing both his points in the second and third round, while offering none of my own (to be fair, since he can't refute against new points). I will touch on that voter issue of rule-breaking in my next round since I can't touch on it in this one, basically, there is a changed status quo in the affirmative I claim. More on this next round.

Value: Social justice is a derivitive of normal justice (a specific class of justice), so I concede his value of social justice as being something important, while holding onto justice broadly as being more important.

Standard/Criterion: I am not too sure what you are claiming about infinite regression here. I believe you are saying that we must look to past premises to see if the current one holds, but I am not seeing how this directly upholds your value of social justice directly ... you are basically just saying that we need to look at the past? I never saw clarification on this so I will assume so.

Observations: I concede both of them, this is just a burdens/framework level argument and not essential to the debate.

Environment:
Basically, all I am hearing is that individualism (see: favoring freedom of individuals) is leading to a host of these environmental harms, through pollution and chemicals and so on and so on. However, a ban on private ownership of handguns has no solvency mechanism; to put another way, a ban on handguns doesn't have a way to solve for this chemical dumping. If individualism leads to 1/3 of all dumping, then how can we say that guns are a significant part of that 33%, when we are offered no ways to assess it? A ban on handguns, I claim, is negligible at best because we aren't solving for all of environmental issues; you aren't actually attacking the heart of individualism, because reform must occur OUTSIDE of the system (more on that later when I talk about capitalism).

Then you talk about the next ecological crunch, yet again, a ban on handguns isn't something that is unique - our domination as a species isn't because we've had handguns, because we were dominate over the world in 2000 BCE -- our domination, as Daniel Quinn in My Ishmael claims, is because of agriculture. Unless you are solving for all of agriculture, you have literally no solvency mechanism here!

Later on you say this quote: "if we restrict the right to own handguns, I am following the process of the society, thus achieving the common good using my value of social justice, " yet I am not too sure what the implications of this are, or even what it means at its face value. Infinite regression doesn't internally link back to social justice. If we are looking to the past (as I understand of your non-existent explanation of infinite regression), then all sorts of atrocities are justified because there is a premise justifying it from before (see: slavery, the Holocaust, and so on).

Social and Pyschological Disadvantages:
Berkeley's Yuriy Gorodnichenko and Gerard Roland point out that, on balance, individualism is actually a net benefit when we look at policy and society as a whole (as my opponent is claiming to be a good thing!):
  • “individualist culture gives social status rewards to people who stand out … give a special, culturally motivated, incentive for innovation that is separate from the standard monetary incentive...As a result, the higher innovation rate eventually leads to higher levels of productivity and output in the long run compared to a collectivist culture … the advantages of individualist culture affect dynamic efficiency and thus long run growth”
Further, they write:
  • Using Hofstede’s measure of individualism, we regress the log of GDP per worker on individualism and find a strong and significant positive effect of individualism. We report in Gorodnichenko and Roland (2010) that a one standard deviation increase in individualism (say from the score of Venezuela to Greece, or from that of Brazil to Luxemburg) leads to a 60 to 87 percent increase in 7 the level of income, which is a quantitatively large effect. We also observe strong, positive correlations between individualism and measures of innovation. The results are similar when we use Schwartz’s measures of individualism. These are not simply correlations. In Gorodnichenko and Roland (2010, 2011), we provide evidence of a causal effect of individualism on innovation and measures of long run growth.

Innovation directly links back to societal wellfare; without a means to improve the society, I claim, we can never actually do so! Turn this argument against them in the end analysis -- this point should go directly to me because their Scott, et. al card from 2004 is outweighed by my Gorodnichenko and Roland card from 2010, 2011.

Capitalism is bad (this is my note from above)
I must be honest here, I actually concede your Jerry Z. Muller 2013 card, and your Mac. Intosh (funny name) from 2000 card -- which claim that there is going to be inequality and genocide and so on, and so on (you see that I have a disdain for capitalism by my profile picture of Slavoj!). However, the link story that you are giving is incredibly weak and is actually not correct when you look at the actor of the resolution; banned is defined as being prohibited by law (I can card this if you so please), therefore the actor is the US.

However, you cannot work within the system to attack it. Slavoj Zizek in Violence talks about systemic violence and how the best thing to do to attack it is nothing (so turn this to my side of the flow) or, as Bhandari of Berkeley points out in 2006, you must reform from outside the system to attack it; any inside attack of the system is flawed inherently! So, don't buy Slavoj Zizek because you hate Slovenes ... see that the affirmative is flawed by Bhandari. Don't buy Bhandari because you hate Berkeley ... see that the affirmative is flawed by Zizek (a self-proclaimed communist, might I add!).

Gun violence is bad
Your evidence might be completely true (and if it is, I feel sorry for the families). However, we need to just cross-apply your observations saying that we need evidence from specifically *handguns*, not just any type of guns or gun violence in general, and so on. We can't weigh your Ludwig card at all because there exist no means to actually weigh it, as you concede that we can't use it!

Sexist
What my opponent is claiming is flawed ... their own evidence actually claims that women are, more than ever, trying to get guns. While it may be true that saying that forcing guns on women to feel powerful is sexist, how exactly is not banning the private ownership of handguns sometihng sexist inherently? I can give you a counterplan saying that we need to fund women's health groups and so on, but it is laughable to claim that women don't want guns and that guns are actually patriarchal. You are misreading your evidence at best, misrepresenting what it is saying at worst (and I claim you are using evidence at its worst) [2].

Suicide
No comment -- my right to life and ending life is sacred. Taking away the right to life and the right to die is against societal wellfare -- if someone wants to die by their own hands, then why should we take steps to remove that ability when all that happens is that they are benefited (as they want this in the end?). I believe that suicide is a tragedy, however, it is a right of people to end their lives -- governmental regulation of the right to life doesn't solve for people feeling that they are oppressed and so on. Let people live their lives, and maybe they will claim them to be important.


Thank you.

[1]. http://eml.berkeley.edu...;(Credit to famousdebater)
[2]. http://www.attn.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
TheResistance

Pro

Note: This round you may only address the attacks made in round 3 and no other rounds.

Let's start with the main thing she hasn't addressed: How I said she was breaking the society.
She never answered this before, so I am assuming that she agrees with this, and she hasn't attacked that, so count that as offense for me.

Value: Justice is NOT a derivative of social justice. Since she has NO evidence stating so, we can't assume that my type of justice is a derivative. Social justice is a certain type of justice, and does not fall under justice. With that said, her justice is defined as "each given her due." My social justice is defined as "giving the common good." Thus, her justice falls before mine again because as I defined:
Bittman,mark,"What is the purpose of society",2015
"Isn't everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn't we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?"
Thus everyone getting their due relies on the WELL-BEING of citizens, gaining me some offense, thus it is really her value that falls before mine. Also, she never gives any evidence about why my value is less important, while I have given evidence, thus mine stand.

Standard/Criterion: My opponent did not get my standard. I am not stating that we should look to look at the past. I am saying we must uphold the process of the society, uphold the steps on how something works, ie: baking a cake
1. Separate eggs. Allow egg whites to stand at room temperature for 30 minutes (reserve yolks for another use). Meanwhile, grease three 8x1-1/2-inch round cake pans. Line bottoms of pans with parchment paper. Grease parchment paper and lightly flour pans; set aside. In medium bowl stir together flour, baking powder, baking soda, and 3/4 teaspoon salt; set aside.
2. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. In large mixing bowl beat butter with electric mixer on medium to high for 30 seconds. Add sugar and vanilla; beat until well combined. Add egg whites all at once; beat on medium-high 3 minutes. Alternately add flour mixture and buttermilk to butter mixture, beating on low after each addition just until combined (batter may look slightly curdled). Divide batter among prepared pans. (If you do not have three pans, refrigerate remaining batter until ready to use.)
3. Bake in preheated oven 30 to 35 minutes or until a wooden toothpick inserted near centers comes out clean. Cool cakes in pans on wire racks 10 minutes. Remove layers from pans. Cool thoroughly on racks.
4. Frost with desired frosting. Store, covered, in refrigerator. Makes 16 servings.
I am saying that we need to follow the steps of the society, like we do cake. If we don't, the whole thing falls and is not successful, thus I gain offense. My opponent tries to twist my standard to make it look bad, but it doesn't work.

My contentions: My opponent misunderstands my ENTIRE contentions. Individualism definitely relates to if we should ban guns or not because owning guns is a individualist right. Thus, I am stating that this is an individualist right, and since individualism is harming the environment, then we shouldn't use it. My opponent never really attacks this; she just dismisses it with the logical statement, ' how can we say that guns are a significant part of that 33%, when we are offered no ways to assess it?' I am NOT saying that guns harm the environment; I am saying that owning guns are an individualist right, and it harms the environment. Thus, I gain offense here.

Now I'd like to take a step back from her Daniel Quinn card. What is the resolution asking us to debate today. "Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned." Not, "Private ownership of agriculture ought to be banned." She tries to say I have no solvency but I do. I am saying that if we restrict individualism, which is related to owning guns, we can help the environment, and prevent the ecological crunch.

Infinite regression definitely links back to social justice. Again, tie my point back here. " I am not stating that we should look to look at the past. I am saying we must uphold the process of the society, uphold the steps on how something works"
My value of infinite regression ties back due to the fact we must follow the path of a society where,
Bittman,mark,"What is the purpose of society",2015
" everyone (is)owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens(.)? "
Thus, I am following the path of the society. The neg inherently violates it. This ties back because if we follow the path of the society, we are being guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens, thus promoting social justice.

Contention 2:Individualism definitely harms. Just because your evidence is newer doesn't mean it is better. My evidence did hard core conducted studies, what yours didn't have.

Capitalism
She CONCEDED with my evidence! She said it was correct and she attacks it with NO evidence. She only says, "However, the link story that you are giving is incredibly weak and is actually not correct when you look at the actor of the resolution; banned is defined as being prohibited by law (I can card this if you so please), therefore the actor is the US. "
Ok? Interesting. I am pointing a flaw in the resolution; capitalism is bad. You only say that the link story is weak. Ok. Have you provided any link stories?
You then remark with a very offensive comment:"the affirmative is flawed by Zizek (a self-proclaimed communist, might I add!)."
How rude! I am Canadian

Gun violence is bad
Lexus states, "might be completely true"
How rude! I searched a long time for it.
Let's add in another card then:
Handguns were defined as a firearm, thus my evidence is accurate
Handguns are most likely used in a murder/crime
Dixon, Nicholas. "Why We Should Ban Handguns In The United States." 1993.
"(H)andguns were used in 77.2% of murders involving firearms and 49.5% of all murders in the United States."
Thus, it is likely that they were handguns, which is why we should ban them. I gain some offense here.

Sexist
Ok? Now that was only a form of taking one quote out to make the entire thing bad. You can't deny that that that was bad, thus I still gain offense. Let's add evidence to my argument.
Kumar Ramanathan, 2013
"This Daisy Air Rifles ad is targeted primarily at mothers, and promises that "millions of clean-cut, alert American boys" grew up on their product, developing "character and manliness." By attaching a concept of gun ownership to "manliness" and hammering home the idea that boys develop "strength" through shooting, ads like this one perpetuate the social norm that guns and violence are integral to masculinity."
As seen guns are also sexist to boys to develop some sort of 'character and manliness.' Add on to,
Stampler 12
"Adam Lanza brandished a Bushmaster AR-15 when he murdered 27 women and small children in Newtown. This is how that weapon is marketing to the general public. Magazine ads equate owning the gun to being a man."
They are sexist to men, and they then dehumanize anyone different

Suicide
She agrees on me with the cost, thus I gain offense. People do have the right to die. It does fall under social justice because people are constantly looking for the common good. If that one person is hindering, we must thus let him/her have a happy death for us to end our mourning/suffering, thus gaining me offense.
Supreme Court of the United States 1996
"(P)erson has a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment in choosing to end intolerable suffering by hastening the timing of an inevitable death,"
thereby showing it benefits societal welfare

So, let's list the offense i've won.
Suicide
Value
Standard
Contentions still stand- she has no evidence against my first one, but 2nd one has been proven
Sexist
Capitalism
Violence

My value is better than hers because again, hers goes under mine because everyone is due a common rights, which is what my value of social justices does. My value of infinite regression beats hers because I am following the path of the society to promote the common good, and minimizing arbitrary actions just falls under mine again, because she is also helping my society by following the path. She hasn't proved at all why handguns aren't arbitrary actions.

Let's further links.
Handguns caused rise in homicides
Arredondo, 1999
"(T)he increase in youth homicides has been fueled by the use of handguns. The
rate at which other types of guns (shotguns, rifles, etc.) and other types of weapons have
been used to commit homicides has remained relatively stable since 1980. However, the
trends are slightly different in Colorado. They differ from national trends in that the
increase in youth handgun homicides was sharper and began at a later date . Most of the increases in youth homicide rates are handgunrelated,but unlike the nation, Colorado experienced a small increase in youth homicides
involving other guns between 1983 and the early 90s, when they leveled off. Colorado has
also experienced an increase in homicide with other weapons in the 1990s that was not
present throughout the country."

Thus, showing handguns increase violence.

For all these reasons, vote Pro!
`TheResistance
http://www.bhg.com...
Lexus

Con

I concede. Since I did not understand your criterion, I feel that all of my refutations or summaries will be flawed as I still do not understand this (and we didn't have any rounds dedicated to cross-examination, a fatal flaw in the structure I guess).

I believe that my case wouldn't have won this round for me anyways, since the affirmative isn't necessarily a changed status quo, just a demarkation of what we ought to do. I appreciate your time, and I'm sorry for wasting it.

As for your sources, I would just like to help you on, as they come from Champion Briefs -- this brief institute has very serious ethical violations in a lot of their publications. Please do not use these in a real life debate round -- (see: the controvery of their Phelps evidence for the December 2015 Public Forum topic; they directly misrepresent what his claim was by means of omitting talking about it).
Debate Round No. 4
TheResistance

Pro

It seems like con conceded.
Thus I win on:
So, let's list the offense i've won.
Suicide
Value
Standard
Contentions still stand- she has no evidence against my first one, but 2nd one has been proven
Sexist
Capitalism
Violence
Con conceded. It is an easy vote, and I've won. Vote Pro!
Lexus

Con

Yes, I concede. Not because this debate doesn't warrant a neg ballot :p but because I don't know what's going on.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Concession.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on conceded debates are not moderated unless they afford more points to the conceding side.
************************************************************************
Posted by Lexus 11 months ago
Lexus
Figeon, they say that they ethically cut cards but in reality all they are doing is taking things out of context completely and not allowing for personal debate growth. They are very unethical in their practices, I don't know how anyone can defend them
Posted by Figeon 11 months ago
Figeon
I don't understand what's wrong with champion briefs? Just because they made one mistake in the past doesn't violate all other evidence.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: pimpmaster// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Pro did not meet the burden of proof. Pro claimed to not be against the status quo but made claims against individualism and capitalism which are the foundations of America. Pro turned this debate into a soap box for socialism and did not stick to the topic and seriously distracted from what could have been a good debate. Vote Con.

[*Reason for removal*] Con clearly conceded the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Lexus 11 months ago
Lexus
Just as an aside, Champion Briefs has serious ethical violations so I would never use them in an IRL tournament.
Posted by TheResistance 11 months ago
TheResistance
Note: I need to correct; I have cited the source:Intosh, Mac. "Capitalism And Genocide." Internationalist Perspective. January 03, 2000. Web. December 07, 2015, but forgot to quote the date and source the Champion Briefs found it. It was their citation. I have used the Champion Briefs as referencing to find my evidence.
I am so sorry that I forgot this. The Champion Briefs are now under the sources I have used.
Posted by TheResistance 11 months ago
TheResistance
@Lexus
I'm not saying that handguns are banned in my status quo. I'm saying why we need to ban handguns because of individualism posing a threat.
Posted by Lexus 11 months ago
Lexus
Hey, just as an FYI, you do have a changed SQ :p handguns aren't banned at the moment, so the SQ is changed. My analysis on burdens may have been faulty, but no means a violation of rules. Sorry <3
Posted by TheResistance 11 months ago
TheResistance
It's just a recap
@Lexus
@paawan
I am doing this to improve my aff case
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
TheResistanceLexusTied
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 conceded the debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 11 months ago
Balacafa
TheResistanceLexusTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
TheResistanceLexusTied
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: Pro's rules were confusing, so Con conceded. Thus Pro wins arguments :(