In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
Debate Rounds (3)
I value morality as per the evaluative term "ought" in the resolution, which is defined as "used to express duty or moral obligation". By Merriam-Webster.
The standard is minimizing oppression.
1.Oppression is bad for equality
a.Arbitrariness " identity is morally arbitrary, so allowing discrimination undermines the foundation of a moral theory.
b.Inclusion is an epistemological prerequisite " oppression is the biggest impact since we can"t form moral theories until all those affected are included by it.
c.Any theory that condones an unequal societal order should be rejected since it would not be accepted by those at the bottom " this makes it useless as a political philosophy, which must be justifiable to the citizens who the government rules over.
2.Structural violence is based in moral exclusion which is flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived difference.
Winter and Leighton 01
To recognize structural violence questions the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. We must be vigilant in listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered. Structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its effects. The same structure which feed violence can also be used to EMPOWER CITIZENS to reduce it.
3.Ethical theories that can"t account for the reality we live in fail as normative guides to action.
Normative theorizing must be integrated with empirical realities of society. Non-ideal considerations must be taken seriously when deriving the principles of justice. If to implement the theory would not result in increase in justness, then it fails. Theorists assume a philosopher can easily determine the best conditions. Philosophers should adopt a critically reflective attitude towards concerning what is realistically possible. Egalitarian theories cannot address tradeoffs that inevitable arise.
As the affirmative, I will defend buyback programs, meaning the government will buy back all handguns from citizens.
Contention 1: Femicide
A] Handguns are used to threaten, terrorize, and kill feminized bodies in the household.
A gun in the home puts women at risk. A cross-national study found high correlation between gun accessibility and femicide homicide. Women said the gun used to threaten them, prevented them from reacting, and they felt unable to end the relationship for fear. Two thirds of households, the partner used to gun against the women.
B] The mere presence of a gun elicits aggressive violent behavior. Banning handguns solves the "weapons effect" " empirics prove.
Guns themselves have been cues of aggression. Frustration can lead to aggressive behavior in the presence of guns. The mere presence can influence aggressive behavior. The removal of guns would reduce aggressive behavior. Within a year of the ban there was a significant drop in homicide and robbery.
C] Banning handguns is uniquely key to prevent femicides " best data shows handguns are the murders" weapon of choice.
Handguns were the most common weapon used to murder females. The number of females killed was five times higher than the total number murdered. Using all weapons combined, handguns were the weapon of choice. 69% killed with handguns.
D] Handguns are used in self-defense in less than 1% of cases " the risk that it can cause harm is sufficient to affirm.
The victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of incidents. The invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim's gun than have the victim use self-defense. The fails to deliver 95% but has the potential-particularly handguns- to harm someone.
E] Try or die for the aff " only a risk we can solve, this means you default gun control solves crime.
NY Times 15
It is MORAL OUTRAGE that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. Determined killers obtain weapons illegally in England and Norway, yes, but at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Certain weapons must be outlawed for ownership.
Contention 2: Homicide
A] Handguns are the FIREARM OF CHOICE for violent crime " BEST EVIDENCE shows reducing handgun possession REDUCES homicide rates and doesn't cause a switch to other weapons.
The US far outstrips countries in handgun ownership and homicide rates. TWENTY TIMES GREATER, handguns are THE FIREARM OF CHOICE OF CRIMINALS, being use in 72 percent of homicides. SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING HANDGUNS WILL REDUCE HOMICIDE. Because of their cheapness, concealability, ease of use, and lethality, handguns are ideally suited to crimes and CRIMINALS ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO COMMIT AS MANY VIOLENT CRIMES BY SWITCHING TO ALTERNATIVE WEAPONS. Sophisticated statistical analyses of COMPREHENSIVE COMPARATIVE DATA PROVIDE STRONG SUPPORT. Three separate studies found that the prevalence of firearms strongly correlated with the homicide rate with a PROBABILITY OF 0.01 THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN BY CHANCE. In its REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, the Academy of Science concludes that there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide.
B] Banning handguns undermines illegal markets and reduces gun availability " four warrants. Limiting legal gun accessibility ultimately undermines illegal markets and reduces crime, we solve the root cause as we take away the source of guns.
The availability of guns increases crime. Where do criminals get their guns?  They steal them or buy them from those who purchased them legally. Even guns obtained from other criminals are traceable to people who purchased them legally. Empirical evidence supports this.  At least half a million guns are stolen each year and these swell the numbers of guns available illegally.  The legal market also affects PRICE. As we restrict guns in the primary market, the supply of guns in secondary markets decreases and their cost increases. INCREASE IN COST DIMINISH ABILITY TO OBTAIN GUNS, thereby DECREASE the number of homicides.  Conversely, legally available guns increases the number of guns. This makes it easier for criminals to obtain guns.
C] Buyback programs are extremely effective " empirics prove.
Homicides by firearm PLUNGED 59 PERCENT WITH NO INCREASE in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides was 65 PERCENT. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. ROBBERIES DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY, HOME INVASIONS DID NOT INCREASE. Contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia [have] been DISCREDITED. Other reports have cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia"s laws didn't work. Peer-reviewed papers note that the RATE OF DECREASE in gun-related deaths more than DOUBLED following the gun buyback.
D] Buyback programs work and doesn't cause a switch to different weapons.
Ramzy et al 15
The places where the most guns were removed from public circulation experienced the LARGEST DROPS in gun deaths. Firearm suicides fell. Firearm homicides also fell. Overall homicide and suicide rates fell, meaning Australians did not respond killing one another or themselves using other weapons. At least 200 lives are saved annually because of Australia"s gun buyback program.
Myth # 1: Firearm purchases at gun shows do not require a background check due to the "gun show loophole."
When the President and others refer to the "gun show loophole," they imply that there are no background checks being done at gun shows. As a result, much of the public has been misinformed and are led to believe that individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows are not subject to a background check.
In reality, there is no "gun show loophole." If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") background check.
The only firearms that are being purchased at gun shows without a background check are those being bought and sold between individuals, peer-to-peer, as opposed to buying a firearm from a gun dealer. These private sales are no different from selling a personal hunting rifle to the owner"s niece or nephew down the road. It is a private sale and no background paperwork is required. The gun is private property and the sale is made like a sale of the family"s good silver. The one difference is that the locus of a gun show is being used to make the private sale.
Under current law, an individual is permitted to occasionally sell part, or all, of their personal firearms collection. These private sellers, however, cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. "Engaged in the business" means they can"t repeatedly sell firearms with the principal objective of earning funds to support themselves. Some of the individuals who wish to sell a portion, or all, of their personal firearms collection do so at the show and might display their wares on a table. These "private table sales," however, are private, peer-to-peer, sales and, therefore, do not require a background check. The President cannot change criminal statutes governing requirements for which sellers must conduct background checks. His new actions don"t do so and don"t claim to do so.
In a peer-to-peer, private firearms transaction, it is already illegal to sell a firearm to another individual if the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the buyer meets any of the prohibited categories for possession of a firearm (felon, fugitive, illegal alien, etc).
Myth # 2: Gun shows lack any law enforcement presence and are a free-for-all for felons and other prohibited individuals to obtain firearms.
Local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present both in uniform and/or covertly in plain clothes to monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing, purchases made by prohibited individuals, including non-residents, and the attempted sale of any illegal firearms.
Myth # 3: Individuals who purchase firearms on the internet are not subject to background checks.
An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly from a firearms retailer over the internet and have that firearm shipped to them directly. An individual can pay for the firearm over the internet at websites and online sporting goods retailers. The firearm, however must be picked up from a federal firearms licensee ("FFL") such as a gun store. In many cases, this is the brick and mortar store associated with the website where the gun purchase was made. Once at the retail store, the internet purchaser must then fill out the requisite forms, including ATF Form 4473, which initiates the NICS background check process. Thus, an internet purchase of a firearm from a firearms retailer does require a background check.
Individuals, from the same state, are able to advertise and purchase firearms from one another and use the internet to facilitate the transaction. It is unlawful, under current law, to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is out-of-state. Any internet sale, even between individuals, that crosses state lines would have to utilize a federal firearms licensee ("FFL"), such as a gun store, and the purchaser would be required to fill out the requisite state and federal paperwork and would undergo a background check.
Myth # 4: President Obama"s January 5, 2016, executive action on gun control represents landmark change regarding gun control.
With few exceptions, President Obama"s executive action on firearms is nothing more than rhetoric regarding the status quo. Many senators have long argued for better and more robust enforcement of existing laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns.
It is the current law of the land that anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a federal firearms license. The President"s action does not change current law, but merely restates existing court rulings on the meaning of "engaged in the business."
Myth # 5: The Obama Administration has made firearms enforcement a priority.
The Obama Administration has used its limited criminal enforcement resources to focus on clemency for convicted and imprisoned felons, the investigation of police departments, and on civil rights cases. The latter two categories represent important work, but the Department of Justice lost track of one of its core missions of enforcing criminal law: prosecuting violent criminals, including gun criminals.
The Obama Administration is only now making firearms enforcement a priority. Clearly, enforcing the gun laws is a new initiative, or one of the President"s actions would not have been informing all of the 93 U.S. Attorneys about it.
Proof of this lack of enforcement is revealed in the decline of weapons related prosecutions during the Obama administration. As data obtained from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, through a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, reveal, firearms prosecutions are down approximately 25 percent under the Obama administration versus the last year of the Bush administration.
Myth # 6: Mental health has nothing to do with gun control.
People with certain levels of mental illness are not permitted to own guns. Many of the recent mass killings were committed by mentally ill individuals. One of the keys to preventing further mass shootings and violence committed with firearms is addressing the issue of mental health.
Background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns can only work if states provide mental health records to the NICS system. Too many states have failed to do so. Many of the worst offenders are states with the most stringent gun control laws. For multiple years now, many members of Congress have repeatedly called for and introduced legislation that would provide incentives for states to submit their mental health records for inclusion in the NICS database.
Myth # 7: President Obama"s executive action on gun control will thwart criminals" ability to obtain firearms.
The President"s executive action regarding firearms is focused primarily on individuals who attempt to purchase firearms through the background check process.
Criminals, however, obtain firearms in myriad illegal ways, including home invasion robbery, trading narcotics for firearms, burglary of homes, vehicles, and businesses, as well as straw purchasing.
Grassley legislation, s.a. 725, was specifically designed to combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals and out-of-state residents.
Myth #8: There is a general consensus in America that greater gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings in the United States.
Despite the President"s statement to the contrary, polls have shown that the majority of Americans do not believe that stricter gun control would reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States.
The American public does not believe that making it harder for law abiding Americans to obtain guns makes America safer. In fact, polls have shown that a majority of Americans thinks the United States would be safer if there were more individuals licensed and trained to carry concealed weapons. A majority opposes re-imposition of the "assault weapons" ban.
Myth # 9: The terrorist "no-fly" list is a proper mechanism to bar Americans from purchasing firearms. " President Barack Obama, January 5, 2016
The no-fly list is actually multiple lists, which are generated in secret and controlled by executive branch bureaucrats. The Second Amendment right to bear arms has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. This puts the right to bear arms in our most closely guarded rights similar to the right to free speech and freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional to deprive an American citizen of their Second Amendment right without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Myth # 10: Gun retailers need to step up and refuse to sell semi-automatic weapons. " President Barack Obama, January 5, 2016
There is nothing unlawful about a semi-automatic firearm. A semi-automatic firearm simply means that a round is discharged with each pull of the trigger. These include most shotguns used for waterfowl hunting and rifles commonly used for target shooting.
My opponent's first point is the firearm purchases at gun shows require a background check. I do not see how to is relevant to banning handguns, as firearms not requiring background checks wasn't a point made to ban handguns. The problem is that handguns are used for crime, and gun shows aren't the problem.
My opponent's second point is that gun shows have law enforcement presence, however, again, the problem with handguns are primarily used for crime, and gun shows aren't the problem.
Next, again, is about background checks, which aren't the problem, it's crime.
The fourth myth is not topical, it's not a reason not to ban handguns.
Neither is the fifth myth.
Or the sixth, since crime is the issue.
The seventh myth isn't a reason to not ban handguns either.
On to the eighth myth: just because people don't want to ban handguns, it doesn't mean we shouldn't. The majority of the people didn't want to end slavery, but with did because it was morally justified.
The ninth myth says we should look to the Constitution, but there's an elastic clause within the Constitution, meaning the Constitution is not a justified moral system, so we shouldn't take action based upon it.
And the tenth myth is not about handguns.
On to my points.
My opponent does not respond to any of them, meaning...
My opponent concedes that banning handguns will reduce homicide and femicide.
Limited handgun accessibility means less criminals, and a smaller illicit market.
Banning handguns reduces crime.
You should vote for banning handguns because my opponent concedes that I reduce homicide and femicide.
In 2012, 603 people were killed by their female marital partners, while only 110 were killed by male marital partners, which is a staggering 5.48 times higher. Now, if we were to add up the total number of homicides committed by female family members, the number would be 926, this only includes wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters, while the number of fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers that committed homicides in 2012 was 589, which is still a ratio of 1:1.57 with women committing more family homicides than their male counter parts.
Now, I haven't had much time to do this as I have been procrastinating, but I typed into google your words exactly of, "Banning handguns reduces crime" and the first link was CNN, which I clicked on but quickly left because it was a very biased article, but I will still leave a link as I refuse to be bias and want you to read both sides and decide on your own if I am wrong for disagreeing with them.
The second link was a cliff notes one that simple showed what both sides argue for, and how we do need to take note of it because children are dying, I will leave a link because, though it isn't evidence for either of us I would say, it still is a quick recap of how both sides say completely different things.
The third link I found interesting and it helped out a lot. You and me both agree that the population doesn't want to ban guns, but then go on to say that we should vote for the buy-back of all handguns. My problem with this is that we live in America and as such, see democracy as something to cherish and to do what the population doesn't want is opposite of what we stand for.
Also, the argument that we as a whole didn't want to abolish slavery is not true, because Congress had to have a 2/3 majority in each house, which they did easily in the Senate, and finally in the House after sometime, as well as every single state except Florida, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, California, Iowa, and Oregon, only 8 states, while 28 states, 4 more than the 3/4 majority needed, ratified it in 1865, which would mean an overwhelming majority, both in state numbers and population as a whole.
Also in the third link, the author states that handguns are not only meant as murder weapons, as, "less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal."
Now I come to the part that really befuddles me, your contradiction in the fact that you want us to deal with a less than ideal world, but then go on to say that because guns aren't used in defense more than 1% that we must assume that we should ban them as that will stop criminals from gaining guns.
Well, that sounds fine, but what about those criminals that don't have registered guns, or refuse to give them up. If we but guns back, then those who obey the law will follow it as it would most likely be a felony if they own a handgun. But criminals are not above the law, and some good people would turn into these now felons because of it.
Just look at the war on drugs. Many people were sentenced to 20+ years for marijuana, and that is because they had done it for a while, and when the crack down came, they simply had to resort to going into the now highly criminalized area of buying from drug traffickers. What would stop a criminal from trafficking guns if they have not stopped with marijuana, even after roughly 36,000 are currently in prison for drug-related charges. This is similar to the New Jersey law that prohibits the wearing of a bullet-proof vest when robbing a bank. A criminal is already in the wrong, so why would this change that.
In part E of your first argument, you say some weapons need to be outlawed. You never specified, but I will assume you are talking about assault weapons as that is what many are pushing for outlawing. The biggest problem with that is that by broadly banning assault weapons, we leave it up to law makers to decide what is and isn't an assault weapon.
Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson have posted a statement that tells how, "Prior to 1989, the term 'assault weapon' did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of 'assault rifles.'" This is continued when David Kopel stated that, "What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm"they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. ... Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns."
What this is meant to show you is that what is classified as an assault weapon by politicians is not actually an assault weapon. This is because true assault weapons fire multiple rounds when the trigger is puller, which has been illegal for decades, is different from a semi-automatic as they fire 1 shot each time the trigger is pulled which is just like anything police officers use.
You are mislead with point A of your second contention as America doesn't have the highest homicide rate per country, that title is reserved for Venezuela at roughly 53 per 100,000 citizens. A side note, Venezuela has someone the one of the highest gun control laws with it nearly illegal to own both guns and ammo, though I'm not comparing as I stated before that comparing countries in this area is not fair but still a fact I thought should be spoken of.
You also spoke about how guns are the murder weapon of choice, and while that is true, if we did ban and collected all 270 million guns in America, which is impossible as even China with a harsh dictatorial government still has illegal guns after 50+ years of this rule, we would then have knives take over the murder scene and, though they aren't effective at mass murder, could easily replace most of the gun homicides because of their easy accessibility, and how hard they are to be traced.
Finally, if you are supporting the buy-back of every single gun in America, where do you say we get the money. If we raise taxes then the money that they are given for their guns would ultimately not be theirs as it would be slowly taken back from them with higher taxes on food, property, or income, all of which would hurt them.
The average gun costs $750 and, when multiplied by 27,000,000 guns owned in America, would add up to at least $202,500,000,000 dollars, which is impossible to be considered reasonable. This is because if 30,000 people are murdered every year by guns, and the average person is worth $5,000,000 according to John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University whose work focuses on national security and risk analysis, that would add up to $150,000,000 which is less than the amount we would spend.
You could use the argument that that is per year and that after 2 years the program would pay for it's self, but that is only an average, and doesn't account for any variables out of our control such as the loss in revenue from guns that accounts for $5,100,000,000 of taxes from the sale of guns, the loss of 209,750 jobs that are directly related to the firearms industry, and the affect this policy could have on politics as gun companies make up a decent part of military spending and with this policy, many gun companies will have to raise their prices to both make up for the loss profits, and to attempt to give the government backlash for a policy that will send many into bankruptcy that could cause another 2008 stock market crash and a possible recession.
My opponent calls "hogwash" on the fact that handgun violence against women deserve a higher priority over men, but extend VPC 11, where it says banning handguns is uniquely key to preventing femicides. If you don't buy that, a maybe women don't deserve higher priority over men, then I still prevent femicides, regardless.
Moving on. I agree, the population doesn't want to ban handguns. So what? It's not a moral reason to not ban handguns. Since my opponent concedes that the value of the round is morality, that's what we're both trying to achieve. While I prevent deaths, my opponent simply states the population doesn't want it. Preventing deaths is more morally justified.
Next, my opponent says in his third link, handguns are used in self protection, even though I have significantly contradicting evidence saying handguns are used in self-protecting in less than 1% of all cases. So, this comes down to evidence. Dixon 11 has the study of comprehensive comparative data, three separate studies, and a review of the literature by the National Academy of Science. Unless my opponent can prove his evidence is more trustworthy, handguns are almost never used in self-protection.
My opponent says what will keep criminals from keeping the guns. I have two responses to this. First, banning handguns will solve for the illicit market, since they get guns from people who purchased handguns legally. Second, my opponent's point is not unique. Murder is against the law, but people still commit it anyways. So if anything, banning handguns will solve the illicit market.
The definition of a handgun is a "small gun (such as a revolver or a pistol) designed to be held and shot with one hand" as defined by Merriam Webster.
And again, Dixon 11 has significant evidence and studies proving that America does have the highest homicide rate.
My opponent says that if we ban handguns, people will just switch to knives. Cross-apply Dixon 11 "" criminals won"t switch to other weapons because handguns are uniquely cheap and concealable "" and prefer our methodology. Empirically denied in the context of gun buyback programs "" that"s Ramzy et al 15. Most people won"t switch weapons "" there"s only a risk we solve "" try or die for the aff "" that"s NY Times 15. Even criminals would give up their guns if they were in poverty so that they could get some money "" also means we have an internal link to solving poverty. Finally, it's empirically denied in Canada
Handguns are disproportionately used in homicides and in robberies. The experience in Canada suggests that criminals will not switch to long guns if handguns are unavailable.
Finally, the point of the buyback is to have an add-on to solvency. Without a buyback, what will make citizens want to give up their handguns? A buyback is first of all, proven to be extremely effective in Australia, and second, it makes citizens happier to give up their handguns.
On to my case.
Extend NY Times 15, I still have a chance of solvency by reducing homicides and femicides.
Extend LaFollete 2K, banning handguns solves for the illicit market.
Extend Subpoint C and D of Contention 2, buybacks are extremely effective.
I achieve morality better by reducing homicides, and by minimizing the oppression put into place by femicides.
I've responded to all of my opponent's arguments.
The three easiest ways to base this round off of is this.
1. I have a chance of solvency for banning handguns.
2. My opponent concedes that buybacks are extremely effective.
3. I achieve morality better.
Because you have no reason to vote for my op
But you will be saying that they still get some of their guns by theft, but if they are like the countless number of illegal guns already in circulation. Also, the higher number of gun owners, the lower the local homicide rate is, according to Gary Kleck, who has a PhD in Criminology and works for Florida State University.
And according to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, criminals are less likely to commit a crime if they know that the victim is armed, with a ratio of 6 out of 10 felons stating this. They even said that the same criminals are less likely to enter a house that is occupied when they plan on robbing it because they were afraid of being shot, which is smart as an unoccupied house is thousands of times safer that an occupied house is, even if it doesn't have a a gun on its premise.
Gary Kleck, as mentioned above, also did a study that found that when, "In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year." Now I am no expert, but when their is a drastic change in something when something connected to it changes, that is proof for be that it works at least in that community, and should definitely be considered else where.
And then there is this study by this place no one really knows about, called the United States Department of Justice, who have been vigorously fighting civil rights abuses, found in a study that criminals are more afraid of running into armed victims then the police.
The Department of Justice also found that less than 10% of violent crimes involve guns of any sort, meaning that your plan of banning guns would only prevent 116,315 crimes, and still leave 1,000,000 -ish violent crimes that would not be affected.
Also, fewer than 1% of all the 275 million guns will ever be used in any sort of illegal means. So that means that because roughly 100,000 guns are being used in a manner that causes harm, that every single person has to give up this right. I would understand if closer to 10-35% but the number is too small to even consider such a drastic plan.
Also, the number of people who die from guns should actually be smaller because 2/3 of all people who die from guns are people who are criminals that die from other criminals. The actual number of innocent people is, if adjusted for this, closer to 10,000 a year. This is many due to the fact that gangs in Miami, New York, Los Angeles, and other major seaboard cities have fierce rivals and lead to deadly confrontations. This can be seen with the Crips and Bloods in Los Angeles who have on multiple occasions throughout the 1990's and continues to this day.
I say all these sources go against what you say, especially seen you provided no links for anyone to click on, while in this round alone I have produced 8.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.