People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.
Debate Rounds (3)
So, I'd like to assume my opponent is a hunter, as his name clearly says "thebaskingdeerhunter". So he will be for guns, if his name has a true meaning. His opening line of his arguement states " I don't think its fair that people get to vote on getting rid of guns when they have no idea what a gun is."
I would like to refute this by saying, The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco And Firearms states that 33, 000 Americans were involved in gun related deaths in 2011 alone. So obviously the majority of people know what guns are, since they're publicized on the news, and such. So his arguement there is inherently false. He then says "persons opinion is based on a video game, or tv, or a shooting on the news." Every person has their right to an opinion, first off, and shootings on the news would lead to someone having a negative opinion. Even after six gun massacres in a year alone.
His next statement says "Guns aren't bad, they're actually quite good". Might I ask for what? Killing people? He might say for protection in homes and such. But in a study by the England Journal of medicine and guns, "guns in homes are 43 times morw likely to kill a family member, aquaintance, or friend then to kill an intruder." Guns are not good at all, as my evidence has stated, they are only used for destruction. Destruction in which guns are not worth. Would you rather have to defend yourself with another object? Or have thousands of people dying every year? Banning guns completely will end all gun related deaths, and set an example that we actually care that children, teens, and adults are dying because of guns. Thank you and I await your response.
I would first like to say, that in an arguement I made the previous time, that the pwople in the home with the gun are 43 more times likely to get hurt. And there have been numerous cases where people have been killed. 33, 000 to be exact. In 2011 only. This is way to large of a number of people dieing just by guns. No we do not outlaw knives or hammers because those tools have been deemed essential to everyday life. My opponent ultimately looked toward his commenters opinions, for use of evidence. And I supplied much more evidence. My opponent says that guns take the blame for people who use it. Those men who dI'd the crime are going to end up in jail, and the gun is also to blame. If we didn't have guns we would have less people dieing, and a safer enviornment. In Chicago it costs over 900 dollars to own a gun. Not a lot of people are rich. So Not many people have guns, and people have other ways of protecting themselves. Guns are not the only resort.
MadisonMichelle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con has a better use of Syntax and Diction (Spelling and Grammar). Con has shown empirical evidence but no source to back it up + Con forfeited the last round.
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.