Resolved,Highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occuring.
This is the way the debate will run.
1.Acknowledgement of your position and ONE opening sentence.
4.Closing Statements. No new points.
On the outside they seem normal. Maybe they look like pushovers, if it is a kid you go to school with maybe you will join in and call them names because all the cool kids are doing it. If they are an adult perhaps you will be rude to them, bump into them without apologising. Even so one day that guy can turn around and just unleash all that hate.
So ultimately yes stricter gun control will help prevent such atrocities. I could go on but the character limit is restric
First, let me address that my opponent failed to follow the guidelines of the debate.
What my opponent has failed to do is to provide solid evidence for gun control.
Now let us look at a study done by the FBI.
First, according to the FBI study, 11,493 people are killed each year by guns. That is compared to 195,000 that die because of medical malpractice and 529,000 tobacco related deaths.
In conclusion, my opponent has failed to follow the guidelines of the debate, not given any evidence for his side. In fact, he has actually given evidence to my side.For these reasons, I urge you to vote Con
For one I believe your statistics about death related gun crime is irrelevant. You asked is highly regulating guns would stop mass shootings from occurring. Yes I added an extra r to occuring because it corrects that mistake. Any the key word in your question is mass shootings. If I am correct 2012 in the US saw 7 mass shootings. All the shooters in the mass shooting were said to have been mentally in in one way or another. I believe that if you do somehow at least impose an individual to undergo strict psychological test before giving him a gun then you have solved the issue with those who want guns to strictly defend themselves or for "sport" and for weeding out those with such disorders and mental health issues.
Now I could retaliate with the smear tactics politicians use in debates but instead I would like to point out the relevance of the statistics you produced and how medical malpractice is relevant to this.
You say that my statistics about gun related deaths are irrelevant, but it proves the fact that even if we were to regulate guns people would still commit murders. In that same study it shows that 16,799 people were killed in a non-firearm homicide. That is roughly 5,000 more people killed not using a firearm.
So, because my opponent has failed to prove your side, and since the burden of proof falls with the affirmative, I ask you to vote con.
Truman forfeited this round.
Well, since m opponent has failed to post his argument, I ask that you give me the conduct point. When you forfeit a round it is expected that you lose that point. So, please extend all my arguments.
As he said in the last argument that he posted he said that in 2012 7 mass shootings occurred. He then said that they were mentally ill in one way or another, which is exactly the point. We should have better mental health laws. These laws would keep those clinically mentally ill. With illnesses that are prone to cause violence, not what some call mental illnesses,
So, because my opponent has now failed to prove his position, has given my position strength, and failed to post his argument, I believe it proper and wise to vote Con.
Truman forfeited this round.