The Instigator
Sonofkong
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,341 times Debate No: 17543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

Sonofkong

Pro

I am here to say that the United States Constitution, if followed will give me a right to purchase a nuclear warhead with no restriction.

Note: This is for the most part a satire. I am morally against pointless warfare and have no reason to desire the wanton possession of a detonation device of any sort but for the moment am to play the role of determined gun nut gone off the edge. This is by no means a moral choice but a legal one. This ultimately ends as a note on the vagueness of a certain document this right is protected in and a parable on blindly following precedent.

For now be sated by this link to a hilarious forum conversation. (I wouldn't know as I never took the time to read through it.)
http://factcheck.gullible.info...;

I list this under health as in public health.
mongeese

Con

Thank you, Sonofkong, for starting this debate.

I predict that you are going to use the Second Amendment in your argument:
"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://en.wikipedia.org...

As you have the burden of proof, and have not made any arguments yet, I have nothing to say so far, so I await your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofkong

Pro

You a correct. I run by the simple premise which can not be disproved. The second amendment was written in a time where arms didn't mean handguns which are now the subject of several rap songs and a battle involving the majority of our politicians. Back then arms meant muskets, cannons and several things which a private citizen could own with impunity. Although I agree with a personal right to own guns I believe that if one uses the second amendment as an attack ongun control they could just as easily use said amendment to defend the ownership of a nuclear weapon.
So in a government where the second amendment which allows me to bear arms, including missiles, can not be trumped by any national or international document then I ergo may stockpile as many weapons of mass destruction as I please. And maybe I will pay a visit to my old friend Achmedenejad.
mongeese

Con

My opponent attempts to limit the definition of "arms" to the "muskets, cannons," etc., but this is not what the definition was when the Constitution was drafted: "In Colonial times 'arms' usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for 'ordinance' (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not" [1]. Cannons did not qualify as arms; nor would a nuclear arsenal today.

In addition, there is an imminent danger in nuclear weapons beyond the intentions of the owner. Mishandling nuclear material could potentially trigger the explosion meant for the target of the arsenal, which would severely damage the surrounding area. That's why nuclear power plants are so heavily regulated to have proper safety protocols. Therefore, a nuclear arsenal would not just be a weapon, but also a public hazard. One does not have the right to operate a nuclear power plant without regulation by claiming that it can also be used as a weapon; that's just silly. Therefore, there could be many restrictions for ownership of a nuclear arsenal compatible with the United States Constitution.

I would finally like to add that regardless of one's right to own a nuclear warhead, there can still be restrictions in purchasing them. The federal government is allowed to regulate interstate trade, and an item's status as a weapon does not expemt it from tariffs and quotas. The state governments are allowed to do the same thing with intrastate commerce. Therefore, it does not matter who my opponent buys his nuclear warhead from; he is still subject to many potential restrictions that do not violate the Second Amendment in any way.

Thank you, Sonofkong, and good luck with your final round.

1. http://www.guncite.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Sonofkong

Pro

I must note that state laws do not matter. In the united states of America the constitution and all federal laws play the trump card in respects to lower level legislation. On an ordinance my opponent failed to note that the same passage highlighted above makes no note of ordinances.The definiton of arms may have excluded ordinances but that is only in a specific terminology which I can hardly see as fitting with legal specific jargon. The wikipedia definition of arms for instance incudes anything that cangain an edge upon an opponent. I have also found the word arms in several documents predating the constitution not in specific terminology (such as canterbury tales) and even in document where greek fire was known as an "armament." If every current copy of the constitution can have an artificially inserted comma after "the right to bear arms," Than a word that has changed meaning should have been changed in the first place. One must assume this obscure analogy of armaments versus ordinances to have either not been intended in the first place or the change was forgotten with the modern interpretation being excepted come years later.

The ultimate moral. Unless local gun restriction holds some weight and the second ammendment is more of a guideline than anything, or I have the legal right (and responsibility as a safe guard to my country) to stockpile on yellow cake.
mongeese

Con

My opponent's first claim is that "state laws do not matter." This is rather false; because the Constitution does not say that the states may not regulate the trade of nuclear warheads, one cannot have a constitutional right to purchase a warhead without restriction. The same reasoning applies to federal restrictions on interstate and foreign trade. It may still be possible to purchase a nuclear warhead without restriction, but the lack of restrictions would in such a case be only a privilege, not a constitutional right, because such a right is not stated in the Constitution.

Regarding how to interpret the word "arms," because the Founding Fathers didn't specify what they meant by "arms," the most logical thing to do would be to look at the definition of "arms" at the time of the writing of the Constitution; otherwise, we lose the meaning of the original text. It is merely a case of a semantic change; in this case, it is of the widening variety [1]. For example, if, in the future, the word "petition" came to mean "massacre," it would be illogical and absurd to claim that one had the constitutional right to massacre by the First Amendment. My opponent attempts to make a similar breach here. He claims to have sources with different definitions of "arms," but as he does not actually source them, they are useless to this debate.

My opponent has completely ignored my argument regarding nuclear arsenals as public health hazards, which costs him the debate outright even if one believes that my other two solid contentions fail.

Finally, regarding my opponent's "ultimate moral," it is irrelevant because it assumes that nuclear weapons qualify as "arms" protected in the Second Amendment; it also fails to take into account public safety and trade restrictions, as I have already pointed out.

As there are three solid reasons why the Constitution does not guarantee my opponent the right to buy a nuclear warhead without restrictions, vote Con!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
If there was a like button for sadolites comment I would push it
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
It's all points or nothing. This old dog won't conform. It isn't vote bombing if I read the debate and vote my conscience. Points should only be given for substance. If you want a gold star for effort and good grammar and playing nice, show it to your mommy or your English teacher.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
If the only thing you think is important is substance then why don't you only vote on the substance (most convincing argument)? If the debate is close and the scores are 3-0 and 4-1 then you come along and vote 7-0 of course it will be viewed as a vote bomb. You are making your vote more impactful then everybody else's with no justification.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I can't vote because I will always be accused of being a vote bomber for the stated reasons in my previous comment so why vote. No one will dictate to me why I vote for anything. It's like voting in some third world dictatorship. It's none of your business why I voted for some one or something. But it's all relevant because I don't vote. I vote in the comment section with my comments.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
My vote isn't open for debate. It has nothing to do with the debate content. If people want to RFD, who's stopping them. I don't want to RFD because all I get is whiny little cry babies making personal unwarranted attacks on my character when their endless whining and complaining doesnt work. I always gave all the points to the winner. That being the biggest whine of all. The only thing that matters in a debate is substance in my opinion. If someone wants to cuss to get a point across and it works so be it. If some one has poor grammar but is intellectually superior in the arena of ideas. I will give the superior idea the credit. Some of the worst ideas in all of history have come from the most "Educated and well written" people in the world. As a matter of fact virtually all of the worst ideas in history have come from "Educated and well written" people.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Sadolite, making people comment on their votes gives debaters a chance to understand why they lost and what they can do to improve. I started off 1-3, the RFD's are why I got better. It also helps to deter votebombers from screwing the results. People work hard on their debates, don't you think this site should encourage voters to vote seriously?

BTW if you are so against sub debates in the comments then why do you start one? This is a debate site. Everyone has their opinions which is why they are here. If you did not intend for anyone to answer then you should not post one.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
The worst thing debate.org ever did was make people comment as to why they voted the way they did. I quit voting because of it. All it does is create sub debates in the comment section that become totally and completely off topic.

I also hate the endless whining from the participants. I liked it better when I got vote bombed, it was more fun.

Some of the most brilliant intellectual thoughts have come from people with poor writing skills. Grammar means nothing as long as the thought is conveyed. Poor conduct, is good. It shows the person engaging doesn't know what they are talking about 95% of the time especially on social issues.

"You can't debate a fact, but only try to discredit the messenger to make people forget about the fact."

I checked to see if anyone has said it before in some form but was unable to find any similar quotes. So for now I will say I said it first. If some else has said it, link me to it, somebody has had to have said it before. I guess "kill the messenger" is probably close to it. Ramble, ramble, klsiqwi-qwpdsp-p
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
"Double_R is a hypocrite. He thinks his own narrow prerogative of how debate works should be homogenized for the entire debate community, and anyone that digresses from his jurisdiction should not participate."

Actually my own "narrow" prerogative of how debate works comes from the experience of participating in real debates (something you know nothing about), and from things I have been taught by experienced debaters along the way. I absolutely believe diversity in voting opinions is good for this site (something I learned from Cliff.Stamp), but people who vote like you make real debaters feel like there is no reason to bother. You are the last person who should be telling anybody about how debate or this site should work.

PS please look up the words hypocrite and fascism in the dictionary so you can stop making yourself sound ridiculous.
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
1) sadolite's comment was so good that I instinctively looked for a Like button.
2) This debate was like two monkeys attempting to fornicate with a football.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Seabiscuit, do you think Sonofkong had better conduct, spelling/grammar, or sources?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
SonofkongmongeeseTied
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: Counter-to Seabiscuit's vote bomb.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
SonofkongmongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't give his sources.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
SonofkongmongeeseTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: i give all my point to con as he demonstrates a good understanding of the topic at hand.
Vote Placed by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
SonofkongmongeeseTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All seven points go to Pro. Hermeneutics tell us that there is absolutely no such thing as misinterpretation, and that's the idea that I got from Pro's rebuttal. Con's contention 2 was completely irrelevant of course there is a potential for mishandling the risk being higher or lower garners you no offense seeing as how and weapon poses the same risk, I agree with Pro dropping that argument cause it was stupid. Pro is a champ and deserves to win.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
SonofkongmongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO explains why nuclear arsenal does not count on arms and why they have the right to be regulated under the commerce clause. PRO does not refute the "health hazard" argument.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
SonofkongmongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con put it: "Cannons did not qualify as arms, nor would a nuclear arsenal today." Pro is clearly misinterpreting the word "arms". The constitution is as specific as can be, but interpretation is inevitable and was understood when it was drafted.