The Instigator
Mickeymouseman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

People should NOT own guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 8 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 34696
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

Mickeymouseman

Pro

People shouldn't own guns. Guns are a problem in society, and result in the death of thousands every year.

Whoever accepts this will have to prove how guns are helpful rather tahn a problem.

Ican't grasp how anyone could even be for gun rights!
TUF

Con

The instigator for this debate didn't make a case, so I will outlnie a few principles based on his assertion.

Whoever accepts this will have to prove how guns are helpful

Since you are instigating this debate, it is your responsibility to prove how each one of the following "aren't helpful".

1. Guns are a means for defense

2. With the black market, Guns will be available to criminals anyway, making the world more dangerous for those who cannot defend themselves.

3. Owning a gun requires responsibilty. Only those who prove to be irresponsible should have their weapons taken away.

4. You didn't make a case, but what about law enforcement? Do you think they ought to have weapons to defend themselves?

I'll await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Mickeymouseman

Pro

You can't just trust people to be responsible though. Think about all those people who were murdered during columbine. and teh batman shooting. Just because on person was not responsible, lots of people had to die. If there was no guns in the first place, this would never be a problem.
TUF

Con

Okay, what about the rest of the points I just made? You literally responded to only one thing I said.... If you are going to instigate a debate, you are generally required to exhibit your stance on the subject in all aspects. But W/E.

You can't just trust people to be responsible though. Think about all those people who were murdered during columbine. and teh batman shooting. Just because on person was not responsible, lots of people had to die. If there was no guns in the first place, this would never be a problem.

Why shouldn't we expect people to be responsible? Anybody who enters a vehicle, holds a small child in their hand, or weilds a kitchen knife is expected to be responsible. All of those options have the possibility of turning deadly. Should we ban all of those things under the principal that someone could go crazy and go on a killing spree? The way society operates, is to raise people to stray away from doing this. With that said, someone crazy enough to kill multiple people, obviously has an intention. They could do the same with or without a weapon. They could easily turn any form of material into a weapon to kill multiple people. Also what about the black market? Do you think banning guns from everyone would literally just shut the system down for everyone? How do you suppose people got ahold of drugs for so many years? And lastly, do you think that if even one of those people in the columbine shooting, or the batman shooting had a gun, that they might have been able to stop the killer before he did more damage?

I ask the voters, vote con, given there are many loopholes in my opponents "argument", and my opponent made a baseless, emotional based argument.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Lucian09474 3 years ago
Lucian09474
I agree a little bit more with TUF than I do with Mickey but he has a point. He may be too young however just like Charles Manson said "Let the children lead you" personally my view is that guns should be allowed however only handguns, and Assault weapons shouldn't be allowed, plus it should depend on the state.

More guns should be allowed on the mid west more than on big cities where help is close by, example if I live on a farm far away from any law enforcement agency, I should be legally able to have a gun to protect myself and my family.

In the city it shouldn't be much of a problem with the police department close by but less powerful guns should be allowed. The black market lets people buy guns anyway, so I agree 100 with TUF because of that area people will get guns one way or the other. However I can see where Mickey is coming from
Posted by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
Mickey, I didn't vote for you because you used no sources, and didn't check your spelling and grammar.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Mickey, you may be the smartest guy in 8th grade. We were all there it gets better. Just sign up for the debate team keep thinking and you'll make more money than all those bullies. Here, you may not understand that you're... well you're definitely not the smartest guy I'll leave it at that.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
This is why 12 year olds shouldn't be allowed on the site.
Posted by Mickeymouseman 3 years ago
Mickeymouseman
People keep voting against me because they are biased. What if your familees were the victim of a mass murder? Then who would you vote for? This is stupid.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by FrackJack 3 years ago
FrackJack
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Clean sweep. Pro had bad s/g and arguments.
Vote Placed by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I want to be nice, as I consider myself as someone who prides themselves as getting better slowly at debating, but I must say I am appalled by how poor Pro's argument is. Not only does he have no regard for the policy of passion over emotion, he misspelled the word "the" on multiple occasions, used no sources, and would have Wayne LaPierre standing on his soapbox rambling about how anti-gun people are pointless. Con wins this one very easily.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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 presents a premise. Con defeats that premise by providing examples. Pro changes his premise without addressing Con's rebuttals. Con defeats the new premise. Pretty straightforward.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 did a good job of trying to help the newb put up a case. Alas, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Pro only gave unsupported opinions, and did not respond to most of Con's points.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro hardly had an argument. Con actually defended their position.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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: Spelling was pretty questionable, but did not make the weak arguments unreadable or anything. Arguments based on pathos appeals are fine, but they need actual substance (a character limit of 250 characters could have helped, via preventing the other side greater detail in their replies). Plus asking how anyone could be in favor of gun rights, this whole thing really belonged in the forums instead of as a debate itself.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think i have to justify this. Pro was lame. He should've made this debate 4 rounds and not based it off an emotional opinion. Props to con for logic.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
MickeymousemanTUFTied
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: If anyone REALLY thinks I need a reason, PM me.