The Instigator
dylancatlow
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Intrinsically, mass shootings are not significant

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
DoctorDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,317 times Debate No: 28528
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

dylancatlow

Pro

No semantics


By accepting this debate, you agree you will not use an semantical arguments. You can still refer to semantics, but may not use them without other arguments.
DoctorDeku

Con

Note: The character count is 1000.

---

I negate the resolved:"Intrinsically Mass shootings are not significant" on the grounds that Human life is devalued when affirming.

Human life is a very precious thing, accordingly whenever a person dies that is a significant thing. that person will never be alive again. Their ideas, thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions -- they're all gone.

Now I hope it would be obvious to anyone reading this, but in case it's not I will be explicit -- when mass shootings occur, people die. To say that that isn't significant is to reduce the value of human life, it is to reject the influence and effect that the mass shooting has on human life. Namely that they end them.

If you buy my argument that the loss of even one life is significant, you must also buy the argument that mass shootings are intrinsically significant; they are the means to an end which results in the loss of human life.

If you agree with this logic, please show it by voting Con.
Debate Round No. 1
dylancatlow

Pro

There are seven-billion humans living on planet Earth. More than one human is born every second and more than one dies every second. While mass-shootings may make for good news, they are not significant events. Looking at the world from a utilitarian viewpoint, mass shootings aren't even a piece of the pie of human suffering. Through out history, millions have been shoot, starved, burned, and depraved. Added together, columbine, Virginia tech, and the most recent shooting i.e. the one in Newton, Connecticut, make up a infinitesimally small amount of the deaths of the human race. These events are not as large of a problem as most people have come to believe. It's easier to conceptualize twenty six-year-olds being shot than 1000+ dying of cancer over the entire United States. I argue that the end result is all that matters i.e. death and human suffering, and mass shootings are just too local of a problem to be considered significant. I still think these events are horrible.
DoctorDeku

Con

Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine which claims we should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not one which says if something only harms a few people it's insignificant.
The utilitarian bit in my opponent's last round was the only argument presented that had a warrant, the rest were just claims. unless pro can show how mass shootings harm a few people while making everyone else really happy, then you must vote for Con.

Next I'd like to speak on dropped arguments, as I said before people will be born and people will die -- but when one dies they are gone forever. Their thoughts, ideas, fears -- gone.
It doesn't matter that people die every day, it is still intrinsically significant when even one person dies. I wouldn't care if there where 7 billion people on earth if my dad died, because none of those people are my dad.

The impact is that humans are not a commodity, each is important and their death is significant; mass shootings are intrinsically significant.
Debate Round No. 2
dylancatlow

Pro

My opponent has created a straw man here by claiming that I am arguing against the value of human life. He has failed to see that the significance of an event is directly proportional to how many people it affects; positively or negatively. Mass shootings affect a very small amount of people, therefore, they are not significant. Please note that when I say "not significant', I do not mean 'not at all significant,' rather, 'not significant' if 'significant' is being used as metonymy for 'very or a great deal significant.'

I do not expect to win this debate because I'm supporting a rather unpopular position. But if you think about it, mass shootings really aren't as big of a deal as people are making them out to be. They are few and far between in a world of seven-billion. It's amazing we don't have them more frequently.
DoctorDeku

Con

First I'd like to point out my opponent's semantic refutation based on the word 'significant'. not arguing semantics was his only rule to which he dedicated his entire first speech. Next, he calls my argument based on the value of human life straw man. It is not. I have argued the significance of mass shootings based on the value of human life since round one.

That said the con argument of even one life being lost was never addressed. People are ends unto themselves, and when even a single person dies that is a significant event. It does not matter that there are 7 billion people in the world, if my Dad died because of a mass shooting then he's gone forever -- none of those 7 billion people will ever be my dad, and so that loss is a significant one.

So at the point that a mass shooting ends even one life, it is significant. Don't buy my opponent's pity argument of arguing an unpopular position; he chose to do so and voters know to vote on the round, not popular opinion

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Seriously, You are forgetting one thing, Relativity,

While there may be a greater number of deaths caused by other means, it does not mean, because a mass shooting results in a fewer number of deaths, compared to other means of death, the the fewer number are insignificant and the greater number of deaths are more significant.

The pain and misery of one death can be felt by a greater number of people, than the death of many.

It is all relative, and to question a death by killing as being insiginficant, is absurd.

Just my thoughts.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
In the grand scheme of things, yes, that would be insignificant. People have a hard time understanding the proportions of human suffering around the world. All terrorist deaths added together within the last 50 years is less than one month of cancer deaths. However, in the minds of people, they are equal. This needs to change. People need to give proportional mental thought to proportional human suffering. Enough with this 'diversity of suffering'.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
So let just shoot your entire family in one foul swoop and see if anybody finds it insignificant.

What a silly thing to suggest.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
This is a weird debate topic.
Posted by Niwsa 4 years ago
Niwsa
Define significant for me so I can decide whether or not to accept.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
dylancatlowDoctorDekuTied
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: In the context of this debate, 'significant' was meant generally or universally, rather than 'significant' to a single person in the sense that a person's dad dying is 'significant' to them. I believe this position is justified, as explained by Pro in the Utilitarian/numbers sense.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
dylancatlowDoctorDekuTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con defended his position well and gave enough reason to Pro to realise that death by mass shootings are not insignificant.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
dylancatlowDoctorDekuTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con could have just showed legislation or trends that resulted from mass shootings to prove his case, but what he gave was enough to refute the pro's semantical arguments regarding what counts or doesnt count as 'significant'.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
dylancatlowDoctorDekuTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not really one for the ages because of the very low character limit, but I felt Con carried forward a marginally more successful argument on the 'significance' of deaths.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
dylancatlowDoctorDekuTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros claim of straw manning loses him conduct because there was none. Con convinced me more than pro in his case and used logic to do so instead of just presenting factual information as Pro did. All around better arguments by Con.
Vote Placed by Niwsa 4 years ago
Niwsa
dylancatlowDoctorDekuTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate really does come down to semantics and what "significant" really means, Pro was arguing one definition, and Con another. Keeping this in mind I have to award arguments to Con since under his 'definition' mass shootings are "significant".