The Instigator
proglib
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
DanT
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,470 times Debate No: 32185
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (51)
Votes (5)

 

proglib

Pro

Burden of proof shared.

DEFINITIONS:

"Gun" actually is a stand in for "arms" in the 2nd Amendment.
"Gun control," therefore means some limitation to the arms that may be owned by private citizens.
DanT

Con

I assume first round is acceptance only
Debate Round No. 1
proglib

Pro

in an effort to keep my perfect ERA, I pass the argument back to Con. :)

I'm truly at a loss, and very curious to see how a smart sane person, which he clearly is, argues for zero regulation of personal ownership of weapons

(sent from my phone-on the bus)
DanT

Con


  1. The 2nd amendment


“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition; the 17th century definition of “Well-regulated”, in reference to troops, meant “Properly disciplined”.


http://tinyurl.com...


This definition is supported by article 1 section 8 of the constitution;


“[The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”


Prior to 1791, states had their own bill of rights, most of which included a right to bear arms. For example;


“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “ ~ Section 13 of the 1776 VA Bill of Rights


The right to bear arms derives from the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The Secretary of State for the colonies gave orders to the Governor of Massachusetts to disarm the local militia. The local militia had long been the main source of defense for local communities.


The founders believed that best defense against an invading force would be if every citizen was trained and armed. The founders also believed that standing armies were dangerous, and that an armed populace was a natural defense against a future tyrant using military force to suppress the American people.



  1. Practicality


In 1764 an Italian criminologist named Cesare Bonesana wrote a book titled “On Crimes and Punishment”. In chapter 40, titled “Of false Ideas of Utility” he discussed the subject of gun control.


Cesare stated that those who would ban a tool in order to prevent the tool from being misused are the same type of people “who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.”


Cesare stated that gun laws only disarm “those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent.” and that “those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code” are less likely to respect the “less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance”. Cesare also noted that such laws “subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty”


Preventative laws only serve as a loophole to undermine our 8th amendment rights. They do not prevent crimes; they only increase the punishment’s severity, while undermining the liberty of law abiding citizens.


From an economic point of view, such restrictions do not work. Price ceilings and/or prohibitions cause an excess demand, which creates black market monopolies; this is why the prohibition of alcohol and drugs both failed.


Most guns used in violent crimes are illegally obtained. Because the guns used by criminals are already illegal, gun control would just make it harder for the victims to defend themselves.


http://tinyurl.com...



  1. Alternatives


I would rather be the victim of a gun crime, compared to alternative weapons. I would rather be shot, then stabbed or blown up. Getting stabbed is much more gruesome than getting shot.


Timothy Mcveigh used fertilizer to kill 168 people, and injure over 650 more. The blast from the bomb damaged or destroyed over 300 buildings.


http://tinyurl.com...


Even if you were able to reduce gun crime, the guns would just be replaced with another weapon, which may be worse than the original.


Debate Round No. 2
proglib

Pro

Thank you to DanT for his well thought out arguments in Round 2.

2nd Amendment
Well argued. However, no court case I"ve ever heard of has said that the 2nd Amendment takes away *all* police powers of the Federal Government with respect to personal possession of "arms." [You, of course, only need 1 Supreme Court case to counter this statement.]

So if this is an argument from authority, the highest judges of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment have clearly stated that it does not take away *all* ability of the federal government* to regulate arms to *some* degree.

It is hard for me to imagine a Supreme Court judges would say the federal government has no ability to outlaw private possession of bazookas, rocket launchers, bombs, ...

Again, though I agree that our founding parents were sane and wise, this argument doesn't help to prove that *NO* regulation of private weapons ownership is sane or wise.

TO BE VERY CLEAR, I SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

This debate is not about whether there is a right to bear the arms permitted by the Constitution. It is about whether *some* regulation of that right, just as there is *some* regulation of other rights (including speech), is wise.


Practicality

1. Eight Amendment [from Wiki--(I had to look it up. I only know the numbers of a few of the Amedments.)]:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."


I"ll need some more explanation to see how limiting ownership of bazookas**, is cruel and unusual punishment.**

2. The economic case:
It seems to me wiser and saner that some things are expensive and difficult to obtain.

This seems so obvious as to not need explanation. However, don"t we WANT rocket bazookas** to only be available on the black market at an exorbitant price?

There are certain items, WMD seem to be a good example, that the sane, wise position would be NOT to be available to ANYONE. And if they are available to anyone, one would hope that only a democratically elected government, and that such a government would do its best to prevent their possession and use by crazy or evil persons.

Alternatives
Non sequitur.

How you would prefer to die has little relevance for whether or not it is saner and wiser to allow *ANY* and *ALL* weapon ownership by private citizens.

Seems to me the obviously saner and wiser position is to do everything within reason to prevent the loss of innocent lives.

Not to be too demagogic, but don't you think the victims of mass murder by rapid fire would prefer not to die at all? To extend that point, imagine if Mr. Lanza had access to even more powerful weapons than he did. Would the sane and wise person prefer that his mother could have purchased machine guns or bazookas**?

Summation
I have rebutted my esteemed colleagues arguments. Though they are well argued and researched, I am still at a loss for someone arguing Con on this Resolution. Therefore, I will offer no new arguments myself, other than those made in this rebuttal.


* (nor the states or other jurisdictions.)
** rocket launchers, bombs, ...
DanT

Con


2nd Amendment


The Supreme Court is an appeal to authority. This is not a debate over the legality of gun control, but rather the rationality of opposing gun control.


Since pro trusts the courts, here are some court rulings;


"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." ~Cockrum v. State, 24 TX


"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." ~ Nunn vs. State, 1 GA



Pro has ceded that the founders were rational.


"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm.…. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands… It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. " ~ Madison, Federalist Papers #46


"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." ~ Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29


Practicality


8th amendment


Preventative laws, including but not limited to gun control, don’t prevent crimes; they only increase the severity of the sentence for existing offenses.


Black Markets


Not only are black market products are more dangerous for the consumer, but black markets are used by criminal organizations to fund other crimes. Although the guns would be harder to obtain, they would still be obtainable by criminals, to use against the law abiding citizens.


WMD


The NPT has not prevented the spread of WMD. It is much easier for governments to obtain WMD than it would be for private individuals, and yet most governments have a hard time developing them. For the time and money spent developing WMD, an individual could make a greater quantity of explosives, which could cause more damage collectively than the WMD.


Alternatives


Non sequitur.


Pro claims that it does not follow that if guns are banned, the criminals would use another weapon. This could not be further from the truth. If a man wanted to kill his wife, and someone took away his first choice of weapon, he would just find a different way to kill her. The desire to commit a crime does not derive from the tools; it derives from the criminal mind.


Mass Murder


As I’ve already pointed out McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer, and injured over 650 more. Lanza only shot 26 people. 818 casualties > 26 casualties.


Bazookas


First off, a bazooka is extremely easy to make. If bazookas were banned, people would just make their own.


Furthermore bazooka is not a practical weapon to use against individuals. A bazooka is used primarily against vehicles. Furthermore, unless the person with the bazooka has support, they would be a sitting duck.


Debate Round No. 3
proglib

Pro



Thanks Con for another excellent round.


2nd Amendment


While Con claims that it is NOT a debate from authority, he still provides a couple of STATE court cases. The ultimate interpreters of the U.S. Constitution are U.S. Supreme Court justices:


http://www.constitution.org...


There are plenty of cases here that show that the federal government DOES have the authority to regulate *some* arms:


http://www.constitution.org...


Practicality - 8th amendment


My Counter:


Increased penalties deter crime.


While there are crimes and criminals for which it is difficult to establish a direct correlation, obviously some would prefer execution to life imprisonment. HOWEVER, if a criminal is facing 1 day in jail or a small fine, it is obvious (prima facie) that he would prefer the smaller penalty, and will only commit a larger infraction if the benefits outweigh the costs.


The argument that increasing penalties, especially fines, violates the 8th Amendment is laughable, and clearly needs evidence in the form of U.S. Supreme Court cases.


Black Markets


Con did not counter my argument that there are weapons that sane wise people WANT to be expensive and difficult or impossible to receive. I would invite him to do so before the last round.


Furthermore, his preposterous claim, very popular among weapons absolutists, that “if ‘guns’ [more broadly ‘weapons’ or ‘arms’ for this debate] are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is a semantic mistake used as demagogy.


The whole reason for this debate was to get away from the ridiculous absolutist discussion. My hope is that most sane, wise people will agree that *some*, NOT *total* regulation of “arms”--bazookas, etc.--is not only necessary, but makes common sense.


Let me refute this illogical statement by first inserting an assumed word in it; then I’ll provide it’s counter.


“If [ALL] guns [‘weapons’] are outlawed, then only outlaws will have weapons.” It is both irrelevant and in fact silly when it’s assumed modifier is made clear.


Weapons of self-defense, defined by government according to the limitations of the 2nd Amendment, will still be legal. This includes many types of firearms.


The more accurate and logical statement would be:


“If some weapons are outlawed for private ownership, only officers of the law, the military and criminals will have those weapons. Other weapons will still be legal for private citizens, including many types of [quite powerful and useful] firearms.


WMD


Con’s counter to my argument forwards his case not at all. The fact that some governments possess WMD does not mean that we should end the regulation of WMD. The logical extension of his argument is that since laws are broken, we should not have laws. Again, preposterous, if not a surprising argument from a position of absolutism.


Alternatives/Mass Murder


Con apparently misunderstood my argument, and goes on to state the obvious as a counter to something I did not claim:


“If a man wanted to kill his wife, and someone took away his first choice of weapon, he would just find a different way to kill her. The desire to commit a crime does not derive from the tools; it derives from the criminal mind.”


Let’s start to look at the weapons available to criminals and psychopaths to murder: their hands; a knife; a bomb; pistol; an automatic rifle; a baseball, softball (or vampire:) bat.


True, it makes sense to regulate only some of the POSSIBLE items that may be used for murder. Due to the 2nd Amendment, and in honoring the right of a person to defend oneself, there are LIMITS as to what the government should be able to regulate.


This, CLEARLY, does not mean we should give up on ALL efforts to keep massively powerful offensive weapons out of the hands of private citizens.


Bazookas


Just another type of weapon in same category as firearms. Extend my other arguments.


I look forward to Con’s next round.



DanT

Con


2nd Amendment


1st off, I did not say this is not a debate about authority, I said it is not a debate about law. I also pointed out that the supreme court was an appeal to authority, because this is not a debate about law.


The USSC’s interpretation of the constitution is a form of case law, and the constitution is a form of statutory law; statutory law is superior to case law, and case law is only relevant to court cases. You can use a Court Case to prove we have a right to bear arms, but you cannot use it to disprove we have a right to bear arms, because statutory law trumps case law.


This is not a debate about the legality of gun control; it’s a debate about the logic behind it.


Pro dropped the quotes by the founders, which implied that the main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide civilians with military arms. The quotes also implied that the 2nd amendment was a safeguard against the Federal government, and against a standing army. Obviously the founders believed civilians should have military grade weapons, and Pro has already ceded that the founders were both “sane and wise”.


Practicality - 8th amendment



Increased penalties do not deter crimes. If penalties are too lenient, people may choose to risk it. Studies by the Department of Economics at Centre College have shown that increasing the penalties does not reduce the crime rate.


http://tinyurl.com...


Preventative laws only serve to oppress the law abiding citizens.


Pro claims excessive penalties do not violate the 8th amendment, but the 8th amendment clearly states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”


Black Markets


Pro falsely claims I dropped his rebuttal for black markets. I did not drop any of Pro’s arguments. I pointed out.


Pro tries to claim that because law abiding citizens can still obtain less effective weapons, black markets would not arise. There is a supply and demand for specific types of guns; any prohibition, whether it is on all guns or just specific types, will cause black markets. There are legal drugs (Caffeine & tobacco) and there are black market drugs (pot, meth, coke ect.). Black Markets by definition sell exclusively to criminals, because what they sell is illegal.


Automatics can be used for self-defense; suppressive fire is a perfect self-defense feature.


Pro claims that a ban on specific weapons would ensure that only law enforcement and the military could obtain those weapons. Again, this is a false claim, due to black markets.



WMD


Pro ceded that the NPT failed to prevent the spread of WMD. His interpretation was that “since laws are broken, we should not have laws”. Once again, the purpose of laws is not to prevent crime but rather to allow criminals to be held responsible for their actions. People murder others every day, but that does not mean murder should be legalized; if murder was legalized the murderers would not be held accountable for their actions. Is it logical that South Koreans cannot develop nuclear weapons, but the rogue North Koreans can? Absolutely not; WMD act as a deterrence to war, but if the aggressors have nukes and the defenders don’t, the defenders are at a severe disadvantage.



Alternatives/Mass Murder


Pro claims I misunderstood his argument, but that is not the case. Pro misunderstood my argument. Pro claimed alternatives were irrelevant, but I claimed they were relevant, because when one weapon is not an option there is always another weapon.


Pro ceded that when the first choice weapon is not available, the criminal will use another weapon. Pro’s rebuttal does not refuse my claims. If McVeigh can make a bomb with fertilizer, it follows that by banning guns school shootings would be replaced with school bombings. Again McVeigh caused 818 casualties, while Lanza only caused 26 casualties.


Bazookas


Pro dropped my point about bazookas.


Debate Round No. 4
proglib

Pro

Thank you to DanT for accepting this debate, and for making it interesting. The YouTube of the bazooka blowing up the bonfire was worth the price of admission.

Con has shown that a sane, smart person can support ABSOLUTE freedom of ownership of weapons. He made a good case that the U.S. founding parents were OK with private ownership of military grade weapons. For their time they were some of the sanest, wisest people around.

Let's be clear about the resolution, though. It wasn't can a sane, smart person be a weapons absolutist, and it wasn't about what was more sane and wise in 1776. The resolution was "It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control." The tense refers to the present and the modifier "more" is also pertinent. Finally, the modifier *some* means that Con needs to show that every possible weapon is acceptable for private ownership and should not be regulated.

Unfortunately for this debate, Con spent a lot of time with irrelevant points like whether a bazooka is an effective weapon, and whether it would be awful to be sliced to death.

Practicality paragraph

Fox News cites a number of studies that show the death penalty deters crime.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Black Markets
Con changes an argument he seems not to understand. While he misquotes me as saying," "; in fact I said thatmaking HUGELY destructive weapons expensive due to illegality is a good thing. Con showed concern that would-be criminals would make their own faulty weapons. That does NOT seem to argue for legalization of WMD for private use.

Alternatives
It is a bizarre argument to say that banning assault weapons is wrong because someone can use readily available materials to make a bomb. Why in the world would a would-be mass murderer use anything other than the most attractive available weapon? People kill with knives, their hands, rope, whatever is available and is the most attractive for their purpose. Taking more deadly automatic weapons away does NOT increase the likelyhood of a wou;d-be criminal using a more lethal weapon. On its face this is preposterous.

Due to time and characher constraints I'll stop here.

Again, I thank Con for an interesting debate, though I disagreed strongly with his reasoning.
DanT

Con


BOP


We have a shared BOP, and yet Con didn’t provide any proof to support his point, he just attempted to rebut my points. Con admitted that I proved sane and wise people, the founders, were against gun control, and yet con has failed to provide any evidence that sane and wise people would not support gun control. Con has provided to evidence that would suggest that is saner and wiser to support gun control.


The Department of Economics at Centre College vs Fox News


Con attempted to rebut the study conducted by the Department of Economics at Centre College, with Fox News. Con’s source is bias, and my source is more reliable. When two conflicted studies are presented, one must consider the source, and whether or not there is bias.



Black Markets


Pro is bringing up old arguments. As I already proved, no one would waste the time and money developing WMD for private use. If someone was planning to use a WMD for terrorism, the law would not stop them from developing the WMD; that is provided they have the money and resources in the first place. Pro avoided the main point of my black market argument, which was that black markets would allow criminals to outgun law abiding citizens.


Alternatives


If a mass murderer wanted to kill people, and only cared about the body count, he would use bombs. The mass murderers who used assault rifles, used assault rifles because they didn’t want to spend the time making a bomb. An assault rifle is less effort than using a bomb. If assault rifles were banned, the mass murder would switch to making bombs, because he wants a body count. If people want to kill they will kill, and taking away their first choice weapon does not eliminate that urge.


Serial killers, who use knives and rope, kill their victims individually, over a long time frame. Mass Murderers like Adam Lanza would not use a knife, and in the absence of assault rifles, he would use bombs. There is a reason al-Qaeda uses bombs; they are cheap and easy to make, and they create a large body count. The IRA was also known for using bombs, as was the weather underground, and even the KKK.





Boston Bombing


Because I have character space to spare, I would give my condolences to the victims of the Boston bombing and their families.




Debate Round No. 5
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Yeah, what I find somewhat baffling about this website is that people tend to interpret the resolution as they see fit. That goes against nearly every single notion about debating...the crafting of the resolution is usually where the debate is won or lost, IMHO.

Anyway, it was pretty clear, at least to me, that your resolution was almost a fail-safe victory. That others found fault with how you worded the resolution speaks much more about their own opinion about gun control rather than whether or not this debate went your way.
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
wrichcirw

Excellent RFD. One of the few commenters to address the central point of the debate: is *any* gun control justified.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
(cont)

4) CON's WMD argument is similarly unconvincing. The entire point of a WMD is payload vs mayhem. WMDs require small payloads to inflict massive destruction, hence the name.

5) CON's argument against the non-sequitor is sound and convincing. Motive is indeed paramount.

6) PRO's points on the 8th amendment and black markets are convincing. Deterrent is important. "Weapon absolutists" is now part of my vocabulary. This lessens the impact of CON's arguments about motive.

7) CON commits a logical fallacy by stating that "I also pointed out that the supreme court was an appeal to authority, because this is not a debate about law." CON's core round #2 argument is sourced from the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. He wholly loses credibility by attempting to argue that an appeal to authority is fallacious when CON himself leads with such an argument. Appeals to authority are not necessarily logical fallacies.

---

Conclusion

Overall this was well argued by CON in attempting to give a viable perspective on his position. However, the resolution is extremely difficult for CON to prove his case.

PRO's points about deterrence via black markets and more severe sentences, the prima facie nature of his position, and that CON's case rested on appeals to authority, to which he attempted to invalidate as a valid approach to this debate, all made me side with PRO.

However, PRO's arguments were not nearly as well constructed as CON's, which is evident in my continual citing of CON's points instead of PRO's. CON also sources more heavily, so sources to CON.

I will give arguments to PRO, and sources to CON (even though the sources IMHO were ultimately unconvincing).
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmm...

Interesting debate, although the resolution is extremely easy for PRO to win. The key word is "some", which essentially boils down to "any". PRO was very convincing by making the simple argument that there is "some" basic form of control over just about any human activity, including speech, and that "some" control on gun ownership would be similarly prudent.

CON's arguments were IMHO unconvincing:

1) The comparison between the 2nd amendment and the VA statute highlights what was left out of the 2nd amendment, i.e. "that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty." This is nowhere in the Constitution, and its omission is telling.

This wholly invalidates his reasoning that "the founders also believed that standing armies were dangerous, and that an armed populace was a natural defense against a future tyrant using military force to suppress the American people." If the founders truly believed this, they would have encoded it fully in the Constitution...but they didn't.

Also, I simply do not see how trading a professional standing army for an unprofessional standing militia would make anyone safer. Violence is violence.

2) CON's counter about appeal to authority by bringing out state supreme court decisions is also wholly unconvincing. Obviously the Supreme Court would be the higher authority, and thus any state ruling would have to defer to the federal courts if there is any contradiction.

3) The Cesare Bonesana quote was interesting (although his name is spelled differently in separate occasions in CON's usage), however my own rational counter would be that there are strict regulations on electrical appliance manufacturing and usage because they can be a danger to people if unregulated. Lifeguards posted in public swimming pools would be another example. Extend to guns...it could be as simple outlawing guns that could shoot out bullets containing CBR (chem/bio/radio)...that would be "some" control.

(c
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
Thanks, folks for your comments.

While I disagree with several folks that "some" versus "none" is an appropriate topic of discussion, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your taking the time to vote.
Posted by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
"I completely agree that if Dan and I were debating *how much* gun control, *some* would be a useless term.
However, this was a very specific debate to separate the wheat from the chaff. Many people are arguing the public policy question as if it were TOTAL gun control versus NO (ZERO, NADA, ZILCH) gun control. The point of setting up this debate was to get past this ridiculous demagogy. My argument (weak though it may be) is that zero arms (gun) regulation is insane."

And as a variety of people have pointed out to you, proglib, "some gun control" is not meaningful. Some gun control could be "always keep your firearm in a safe direction, treat all guns as if they are loaded, and don't shoot while drunk" or it could be "only police and military can have guns". Gun control is dependent on laws, which are more than abstract concepts, they are concrete rules. You are arguing that it is more insane and unwise to not support some undefined set of laws.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
The debate is a mess of semantics: what are "arms" in the 2nd amendment context? What is "sane" or "more sane"? What is an "expert" vs. an "authority"? What is "some control" in practice? Untangling a semantic mess and having to derive the resolution does not make a good debate. Having a clear and very specifc resolution is fundamental to debate.

Pro should pick an example of "some control" and put it in a resolution. "Ownership of fully automatic weapons should be restricted." ... something specific.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
demonstrated what "some gun control" would like like.

Especially in response to the black market argument that Con brings up. What exactly will some gun control achieve? The only blip I found from the pro on his stance of "some control" was a quote that stated only police officers would have guns. this is already the assumption of most people who argue against control of guns, but doesn't do a lot for the Pro in defending against how the wrong people will still utilize the black market to get their hands on the weapons they want.

SO as a judge, I have to weigh the values overall of this debate.

Pro: Advocates some gun control, shows very little demonstration of what "some control" would look like, and drops several points as irrelevant without proper explanation (see homemade guns, and alternatives). Pro pushes BOP on Con contradicting the statement made in R1, leaving me nothing to weigh or value on his side.

Con: Shows adequate harms to the controlling of guns, shows benefits to owning them, provides plenty of structure and analysis to support his claims, and has many of his debate winning arguments, pointed to as irrelevant.

Pro had every potential in winning this debate, And I would definitely like to see him do this again, maybe with a little bit better of a case to support his stance, but in the end I think Con won pro, in arguments, conduct, and sources.

However, I will only be voting arguments in Con's favor reasons of keeping tension low, because of subjectivity reasons.

There was a lot of extra space in this debate that I think both the pro and the con equally could have utilized a bit more to help them make more quality arguments. Thanks for the debate, it was a fun insightful read!
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
demonstrated what "some gun control" would like like.

Especially in response to the black market argument that Con brings up. What exactly will some gun control achieve? The only blip I found from the pro on his stance of "some control" was a quote that stated only police officers would have guns. this is already the assumption of most people who argue against control of guns, but doesn't do a lot for the Pro in defending against how the wrong people will still utilize the black market to get their hands on the weapons they want.

SO as a judge, I have to weigh the values overall of this debate.

Pro: Advocates some gun control, shows very little demonstration of what "some control" would look like, and drops several points as irrelevant without proper explanation (see homemade guns, and alternatives). Pro pushes BOP on Con contradicting the statement made in R1, leaving me nothing to weigh or value on his side.

Con: Shows adequate harms to the controlling of guns, shows benefits to owning them, provides plenty of structure and analysis to support his claims, and has many of his debate winning arguments, pointed to as irrelevant.

Pro had every potential in winning this debate, And I would definitely like to see him do this again, maybe with a little bit better of a case to support his stance, but in the end I think Con won pro, in arguments, conduct, and sources.

However, I will only be voting arguments in Con's favor reasons of keeping tension low, because of subjectivity reasons.

There was a lot of extra space in this debate that I think both the pro and the con equally could have utilized a bit more to help them make more quality arguments. Thanks for the debate, it was a fun insightful read!
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
If the BOP is shared, then I don't quite understand why Pro decided to willingly pass his round 2 over to con. To me, that was a perfect oppertunity to add thoughts onto his own side of the debate, as well as hear those from the con. Doing so, hurt him, as you don't actually get to see his arguments until round 3 of the debate.

But Pro did ask me to vote on this debate via message, and after reading it, I am sorry to say, that I have to agree that Con was the winner of this debate. No bias, or wanting to flame with pro like scuffles. I am going to drop my opinion, and vote, and thats it.

On arguments, and conduct, and sources alone, I think Con hands down has won this debate.

Structure loss was apparenent in the Pro's arguments towards the end of the debate, which made reading it a little more vexing as well.

I am going to disgarud the 8th amendment argument on this debate. The current laws are clear, and the logic behind them was too, however I think it can be agreed that this day and age is different from when the article was was written and ammended. Overall I don't see this point as a viable asset to the Con's arsenal of arguments.

But I will give points to con over several aspects:

1. Alternatives

When pro refutes this, saying that how someone dies in not irrelevant, I think this is where it hurts his case a bit. The point Con had in this was that in controlling weapons, death, pain and violence is not stopped. In fact more is caused from these types of weapons. Con arguing and saying this is irrelevant, was in hindsight probably a silly move. A smarter approach would have been to argue how a firearm can result in more death in a shorter time period than weapons like guns can.

Con also bring up a point how most serial killers can end up killing far more victims then killing spree maniacs can, without guns.

But the one thing pro didn't do that harmed him the most in this debate (which he porbably should have done R1 or 2), is outline
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
proglibDanTTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
proglibDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro had too weak a case to consider.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
proglibDanTTied
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: Pro defined "gun" as "arms" where "arms" is interpreted as it is in the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court is an "authority" on interpreting the 2nd Amendment, meaning an "expert" -- not necessarily a ruling executive. Other experts can be cited as well. the 2nd amendment context limits the debate to weapons commonly used for self-defense -- not flame throwers and nukes, but handguns an rifles. Pro has an obligation to make a clear resolution, usually accomplished in the challenge with a statement of the context. Pro provided not clarification and refused to even make an affirmative case. The resolution demands Pro prove opposition to control is both insane and unwise. "Insane" in this context means "foolish." Pro failed to prove it was foolish. Failure to provide an affirmative case is a conduct violation, but Con used an image to evade the character limit, offsetting bad conduct.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
proglibDanTTied
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: Made a brief post explaning my thoughts on the debate in the comments.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
proglibDanTTied
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 was a close debate, but pro missed con's point in round 4 about black markets, and countered con's point about McVeigh vs Lanza with an unsupported assertion. Pro spent more time arguing about the legality of gun control and how dangerous "arms" re as an abstract, but in my opinion, failed to successfully use this to show how it was both more insane and unwise to support some unspecified limitation on arms. Pro essentially argued that is is more sane and wise to support *undefined position*, as "some arms control" could refer to anything from the lightest of gun regulations to the strictest. RFD Explained in more detail in comments.