The Instigator
ZacharyDamon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Consummator
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Consummator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 976 times Debate No: 30651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

ZacharyDamon

Con

First round for acceptance only.

Here's a situation: A person goes into a school with the intent to shoot as many people as possible. But before he can get more then a few shots off, a student who had a rifle in their car in the school's parking lot takes out the shooter. Other then the shooter, nobody was seriously hurt. Although the student possibly saved countless lives, he got expelled.

Did he deserve to get expelled? I am arguing that he should not have, while my opponent will be arguing for the affirmative.
Consummator

Pro

A rifle isn't a handgun and it's illegal to possess one, especially on school grounds especially for a student.
Debate Round No. 1
ZacharyDamon

Con

But a man with a rifle who had the intent to kill several people was killed before the police even reached the school, thereby neutralizing the danger that could have resulted in several people killed. This is kind of like the Pearl River Mississippi shooting.

Pearl River was a case in which a 16 year old Luke Woodham bludgeoned his mother to death, then went to school armed with a rifle. He went into the school and shot two students to death, and then went to his car to try and flee the scene before the police arrived. But then what happened was, before he could flee, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a Colt .45 from his vehicle and was able to attain Woodham until police arrived.

While I understand that it was a student in this case, and the weapon the student was using was NOT a Colt .45, it is still similar that somebody broke the rules and brought a firearm into a "no gun zone" to use it for good, and when somebody tried to bring a gun into a "no gun zone" for evil, the good guy was able to take out the evildoer before anybody was seriously hurt.

The point is that even though the student broke the rules and brought a gun onto school grounds, he was able to detain a situation that could have ended tragically as students and teachers would be forced to wait for a police force that could very well be minutes away.

Sources: http://ireport.cnn.com...
Consummator

Pro

In your round one you never, ever specified that the gun being used by the original murderer was a rifle. Nonetheless, two wrongs don't make a right and this statement is entirely false.

The example you stated had a student, who shouldn't have any weapon on grounds, possessing a rifle, which is illegal even for adults, and murdering another human being. The CNN case you gave had a full grown adult using a valid handgun kept in their car for defence purposes not at all killing the perpetrator but instead chasing him with the gun until he tried to flee with the car (then an army officer who worked for the police had arrived in time to detain the boy).

the boy was never killed and the weapons used was a handgun and it was used by a legal adult. It is entirely separate to the case of murder you offered and shouldn't be used as a comparison.
Debate Round No. 2
ZacharyDamon

Con

I apologize for not specifying the weapon used, that was my fault completely. But that does not change the fact that the person who went into the school had the intent of killing as many people as he could. While I understand that it is preferable to detain the subject, that does not change the fact that sometimes it is, unfortunately, necessary to kill them.

Secondly, your argument about the handgun being a more "valid" weapon is completely false. A "No Gun Zone," means no guns! Handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. are all punishable. Whether that is the expulsion of a student or the termination of an adult employee, it doesn't matter. Mr. Myrick was, technically, breaking the law by bringing a handgun to a school. So according to your logic, it is perfectly feasible that an adult can break the law by bringing a firearm to school.

Thirdly, it is not "murder" if the person who was killed had the intent of killing others. If the police had arrived and shot the student to death, would that have been murder? And the student who had the rifle was obviously not going to use it for mass murder, as he not only shot the perpetrator, but then obviously cooperated with law enforcement and school officials.

My leaving thought is this; if somebody was in a school that you intend, or a school where your child were to attend, would you rather have the shooter killed by a student before they could kill you or your child, or would you rather they have several minutes of uninterrupted shooting where they could claim dozens of victims, possibly including yourself or your child?
Consummator

Pro

It is perfectly legal inmost states to keep a handgun, for an adult, in the seat cabinet of their car. The stated CNN case, where the teacher who chased the killer with his handgun was not even fired nor was he punished in any form whatsoever as everything he did was legal. He was to his car and got he gun from the driver's cabinet (where it is legal to keep a handgun for safety) and then chased the student away with it, in no way killing them or even harming them. The situation posted in round one is different entirely.

The notion that the student who used an illegal weapon to kill the shooter didn't murder him could be valid if we see that killing in direct defence is not illegal. Nonetheless, the student, unlike police officers, had no special training on aiming long distance and easily could have missed the killer and murdered a student or teacher while doing so. Additionally the weapon he had in his car (I wonder why a student had a ca unless he was an adult) was an illegal one to possess nation-wide and in and of itself deserved expulsion from the school. Absolutely nothing he did was warranted or valid. He should have warned the killer that he had a gun and told him to drop the gun and run or something similar before shooting. Either way the possession of a rifle in USA is illegal in almost all states (I think all but am not sure).

"If somebody was in a school that you intend[attend], or a school where your child were to attend, would you rather have the shooter killed by a student before they could kill you or your child, or would you rather they have several minutes of uninterrupted shooting where they could claim dozens of victims, possibly including yourself or your child?"

I don't think you realise that the error here is with the killer. Whatever happens may happen and whatever expulsions must occur as a result will occur. This, unfortunately has to happen for the upholding of laws. I would indeed appreciate the illegal murder of this insane killer but would not legally, in any way, condone the murder in and of itself.
Debate Round No. 3
ZacharyDamon

Con

Your arguments are somewhat valid, but in my opinion, you are still wrong.

Firstly, the reason a student might have a car would be because he's in high school (again, my fault for not specifying).

Secondly, you said that "the notion that the student who used an illegal weapon to kill the shooter didn't murder him could be valid if we see that killing in direct defence [defense] is not illegal." While that is true, your definition of murder is completely off. Murder is "The crime of unlawfully killing another person, especially with malice aforethought." This term more closely fits the antagonist in the scenario, whereas by calling the student who defused the situation (albeit through the death of the antagonist), using this word in this manner, you are misconstruing the evidence in a manner that suits you. The more appropriate term might be "guardian." Guardian, "one who has the care of the person/property." While this term may only be loosely affiliated with the student in question, it can still be an affiliation as the student did protect the school's students and property.

Thirdly, "It is perfectly legal inmost [in most] states to keep a handgun, for and adult, in the seat cabinet of their car." That is true, when it is off of school property. However, he was on school property and therefore, was in violation of the law. Once again, a "no gun zone" means a "no gun zone."

Lastly, your final comment about the "illegal murder of this insane killer." If this person is about to go on a killing spree which is illegal, then it is legal to kill them before any substantial damage can be done to persons or property.

I would like to thank Consummator for accepting this debate, and I respect your opinions fully. Good luck in voting.
Consummator

Pro

My opponent said that I should have spelt 'defence' as 'defense'.

All I have to say is this: http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Definition of defence
noun
  • 1 [mass noun] the action of defending from or resisting attack:methods of defence against this kind of attackshe came to the defence of the eccentric professorhe spoke in defence of a disciplined approach
  • [count noun] an instance of defending a title or seat in a contest or election:his first title defence against Jones
  • military measures or resources for protecting a country:the minister of defence[as modifier]:defence policy
  • a means of protecting something from attack:wire netting is the best defence against rabbits
  • (defences) fortifications or barriers against attack:coastal defences
  • 2the case presented by or on behalf of the party accused of a crime or being sued in a civil lawsuit:the farmer’s defence was that he intended only to wound the thief
  • (the defence) [treated as singular or plural] the counsel for the defendant in a lawsuit:the defence requested more time to prepare their case
  • 3(in sport) the action or role of defending one’s goal or wicket against the opposition:Wolves were pressed back into defence
  • (the defence) the players in a team who defend the goal:despite heavy pressure the defence was coping wellFord returns to United’s defence[count noun]:dribbling through defences
So yeah :)

Aside from that, the issue of an adult having a handgun on school property is irrelevant to the debate propose din round one and shall as such be discarded from debate.

It is illegal for a student to use a rifle to murder another person since they are neither trained to kill with a gun nor legally allowed to possess a rifle.

I have clearly won. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ZacharyDamon 4 years ago
ZacharyDamon
May the best man win
Posted by Consummator 4 years ago
Consummator
WTF I MEANT VOTE PRO OMG -.- sigh
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
ZacharyDamonConsummatorTied
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 and Con agree the student's possession of a gun on campus is illegal. Pro and Con agree that they prefer that student shoot the bad guy. What they don't agree on is whether the law should be applied to that student. The burden of proof is on the instigator/con, and they didn't meet that burden by showing that the benefits of rewarding the student (after the fact) outweighs the disadvantages of not applying the law. Keep in mind, corporations and individuals often violate the law when they feel the benefits outweigh the consequences. There's a difference between having a justification to ignore the law and having a justification to overturn or not enforce law.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
ZacharyDamonConsummatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Any student possessing a rifle on school grounds when it is explicitly forbidden should be expelled, and pro made the case for it.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
ZacharyDamonConsummatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Dura lex, sed lex