The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,830 times Debate No: 7052
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (57)
Votes (9)

 

ournamestoolong

Pro

This is how it's going to work. You provide 3 issues you want to debate and post your decision on Round 1, then I post my case for one of those topics. The rest follows like a three round debate.
rougeagent21

Con

1-US submits to the ICC, CON

2-Guns should be banned in the US, CON

3-Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism, PRO
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Pro

I choose "Guns should be banned in the United States" I am Pro.

In 2007, 16,929 people ( http://www.fbi.gov... ) were murdered. Now you may say that this is a normal number for international crime rates, But it is not. Looking at the homicide rate of our own country (5.6 murders for every 100,000 people) compared to other developed countries, we see we have a particularly high rate. (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2) (http://www.photius.com...)

So what makes us different from these countries. They are just as developed, and many of the outside influences are the same. So what is the difference? All the countries I listed have some type of gun control. (http://news.bbc.co.uk..., http://www.guncite.com..., http://archives.cnn.com...) So this proves that gun control is effective. Japan has the strictest gun control and the lowest homicide rate.

Guns should be banned because it would lower homicide rates until they would be virtually non-existant.

Banning guns would not violate the first ammendment as it reads, "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." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...)

Unless my opponent argues that criminals are a well regulated militia, this point stands.

So in conclusion, banning guns would keep us safe and is Constitutional.
rougeagent21

Con

I will open by addressing my opponent's case, and then go on to show you why the resolution is unjust pertaining to the United States.

My opponent opens with a set of statistics. I will counter with my own

Italian population 2007: 59.8 million

German population 2007: 82.2 million

Japanese population 2007: 127.77 million

United Kingdom population 2007: 60.7 million

United States population 2007: estimated 360 million by 2007 (This is due to the fact that the US Census is taken every ten years. Based on the growth rate, one can assume we would have numbered over 360 million in 2007)

Going by these numbers, we can clearly see how my opponent's statistics are completely plausible, and not in a significant way due to gun control laws. These numbers speak for themselves.

He also makes the case that by banning guns we would not be violating the constitution. He then says that criminals are not a regular militia. What my opponent fails to realize is that the resolution is not about banning guns for criminals, but about for all United States citizens on US soil. What you now must realize is that criminals are not the only individuals applying to the resolution. Also pertaining to it are regular citizens, as well as military personal. Are they not US citizens? Are they not on US soil? (The ones stationed in the US) Are they not a well-formed militia? We can now clearly see that banning guns WOULD directly contradict the constitution, and even violate our safety.

Having torn down my opponent's case, I now present to you the fact that a gun ban in the US is unjust. First, we are guaranteed the right in our constitution. Second, we would endanger our safety. (Again, guaranteed by the Constitution) Lastly, if guns were banned, only criminals would have them. If that were the case, citizens would not be able to defend themselves. (Again, violating the Constitution and their personal safety) For these reasons a gun ban would be unjust. Ending on that note, I conclude round two of the debate. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting a speedy argument.

"My opponent opens with a set of statistics. I will counter with my own

Italian population 2007: 59.8 million

German population 2007: 82.2 million

Japanese population 2007: 127.77 million

United Kingdom population 2007: 60.7 million

United States population 2007: estimated 360 million by 2007 (This is due to the fact that the US Census is taken every ten years. Based on the growth rate, one can assume we would have numbered over 360 million in 2007)

Going by these numbers, we can clearly see how my opponent's statistics are completely plausible, and not in a significant way due to gun control laws. These numbers speak for themselves."

Forgive me if my statistics were unclear, I posted ratios, which are unaffected by population

My revised statistics

MURDER RATES:
United States: 5.6 :100000
U.K.: 2.1 :100000
Japan: .5 :100000
Germany: 1 :100000
Italy: 1.2 :100000

Now that that is cleared up I will refute my opponents arguments.

"He also makes the case that by banning guns we would not be violating the constitution. He then says that criminals are not a regular militia. What my opponent fails to realize is that the resolution is not about banning guns for criminals, but about for all United States citizens on US soil. What you now must realize is that criminals are not the only individuals applying to the resolution. Also pertaining to it are regular citizens, as well as military personal. Are they not US citizens? Are they not on US soil? (The ones stationed in the US) Are they not a well-formed militia? We can now clearly see that banning guns WOULD directly contradict the constitution, and even violate our safety."

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
mi�li�tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

First of, you offered no resolution except for "guns should be banned in the US" Second, a group of citizens, is by no means, a well organized militia. The military has no need to have guns if they are stationed in their own country. The Constitution states "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" Because the security of our free state is not at risk, we do not need guns.

"Having torn down my opponent's case"

I don't really think you did.

" I now present to you the fact that a gun ban in the US is unjust. First, we are guaranteed the right in our constitution."

I already adressed this

"Second, we would endanger our safety. (Again, guaranteed by the Constitution)"

Au Contraire, the clear, solid facts I gave clearly show gun control raises saftey

"Lastly, if guns were banned, only criminals would have them. If that were the case, citizens would not be able to defend themselves. (Again, violating the Constitution and their personal safety) For these reasons a gun ban would be unjust. Ending on that note, I conclude round two of the debate. Thank you."

People can defend themselves other ways (pepper spray, martial arts, a dog) and if people need to defend themselves the police are failing. That IS why we have a police force.

Thank you for this debate.
rougeagent21

Con

My opponent and I both make attacks on each other's cases, so I will only address the essence of the debate. So here is what the debate comes down to:
-1 Is a gun ban constitutional?
-2 Will citizen's safety be compromised in the event of a gun ban.

First off, I said that a gun ban would be completely unconstitutional. My opponent countered by saying that home-based military do not need guns. What? Thats ridiculous! How are we to defend ourselves if even the military don't have guns? What happens in the case of a bombing? In a terrorist attack? Also he says that our security is not at risk. Again: ridiculous. Are we not hated by billions of people around the world? What about terrorists? Remember 9/11? Right, our security is not at risk at all, right?

Second, the safety of citizens. Here is the thing, if guns are banned, only criminals will have them. My opponent says we have other ways to defend ourselves, such as martial arts, pepper spray, a dog? OK, lets think about this for a moment. A man with a gun breaks into your house. Do you
a) Pepper spray! (From thirty feet away, right?)
b) Karate chop him (again, thirty feet away)
c) Tell your dog to sic 'em

Pepper spray- How can you hit him with the spray from thirty feet away?
Karate- From thirty feet away?
Dog- He shoots the dog. What now?

Obviously, the ONLY viable option is the good old glock. Peg him. What else can you do? Nothing. Now he either steals your stuff, or shoots you and then steals your stuff. What now?

A gun ban would be unjust because:
-It is unconstitutional
-It would compromise the safety of our citizens. (Which is, again, unconstitutional)

For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
ournamestoolong

Pro

I thank my opponent for a interesting debate

"First off, I said that a gun ban would be completely unconstitutional. My opponent countered by saying that home-based military do not need guns. What? Thats ridiculous! How are we to defend ourselves if even the military don't have guns? What happens in the case of a bombing? In a terrorist attack? Also he says that our security is not at risk. Again: ridiculous. Are we not hated by billions of people around the world? What about terrorists? Remember 9/11? Right, our security is not at risk at all, right?"

"Home based military SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTING US. I am against the notion of having troops in the US during peace time. The police force should protect us and THEY should have guns.
Second, the safety of citizens. Here is the thing, if guns are banned, only criminals will have them. My opponent says we have other ways to defend ourselves, such as martial arts, pepper spray, a dog? OK, lets think about this for a moment. A man with a gun breaks into your house. Do you
a) Pepper spray! (From thirty feet away, right?)
b) Karate chop him (again, thirty feet away)
c) Tell your dog to sic 'em"

Ok these notions are ridiculous, those were just examples. Here is another option.
D) TRUST THE POLICE

"Obviously, the ONLY viable option is the good old glock. Peg him. What else can you do? Nothing. Now he either steals your stuff, or shoots you and then steals your stuff. What now?"

As I said before, ridiculous.

"It is unconstitutional"

Only if the police don't have guns

"It would compromise the safety of our citizens. (Which is, again, unconstitutional)"

The police protect the citizens, and the statistics show that gun control makes countries safer.
rougeagent21

Con

OK, well thank you for an enjoyable debate. In this round, I will not bring up any new information, as that would be unfair to my opponent. I will address the essence of the debate. How is this debate applicable to you: the voter?

First off, my opponent actually concedes the debate. Please note the following quote: " The police force should protect us and THEY should have guns." My opponent admits that guns should be present in the US. If you read the resolution: Guns should be banned in the US, you will see that he concedes.

Even though my opponent has conceded, I will continue. He says that we should not have guns, and that we should trust the police to protect us. (Again, the police have guns) This is unrealistic. Take into account my previous example. A robber/murderer is in your house. You can either shoot him, or call the police, hope they get there in the next millisecond, and hope they will shoot him for you. That is COMPLETELY ridiculous. The police cannot be everywhere, all the time. And they certainly cannot be at your house every hour of the day. Guns are THE ONLY WAY to adequitly protect oneself. I have proven all other options ineffective, leaving guns to be the only viable option. So here is why you should vote con:

1-My opponent conceded

2-You cannot protect yourself were there to be a gun ban.

For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Ultimately I voted Pro across the board, but it was pretty close on most the issues. Pro's argument was well enough but I think he made some serious tactical errors. For one, he should never have argued constitutionality. Banning guns is banning guns. The fact that the 2nd (not the first) amendment allows one the right to bear arms does not mean that that is the best solution. If one were to properly ban guns the 2nd amendment would need to be repealed.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Yes in fact, it is.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
If thats how you feel.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
I think I did better, Please post RFD's
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
"It is unrealistic to think that no one should have guns, because the police need them."
Then why did you accept the debate?

"And how are you winning?"
Possibly because I convinced people that guns should not be banned in the US?
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
There are some people who should be allowed to have guns. Basically your resolution was

RESOLVED: Guns should be prohibited in the US

It is unrealistic to think that no one should have guns, because the police need them.

And how are you winning?
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
How was the resolution unclear? Guns should be banned in the US. Whats confusing? (By the way, you are the one who picked to debate it. You kind of had it coming)
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Also, in order for me to have conceded, you would have needed to be more clear on the resolution.

i.e. RESOLVED: Guns for private citizens in the US should be banned

or

RESOLVED: Guns should never be present in the US

It is like the issue with some drugs, they are illegal to the public, but doctors can precribe them.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
You can, but some debaters are against it. I don't just to be sure.
I really don't think I should be losing this, post RFD's.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Wait, are you not allowed to vote for yourself? Why not? (I didn't vote, but just curious. The president votes for himself...)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Riley09 8 years ago
Riley09
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jordand 8 years ago
jordand
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
ournamestoolongrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07