The Instigator
PublicForumG-d
Pro (for)
Losing
51 Points
The Contender
Cooperman88
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,550 times Debate No: 3476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (34)

 

PublicForumG-d

Pro

We affirm "Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society."

We offer these definitions:

Unnecessary: Not Necessary from Princeton

Necessary: Absolutely essential from Princeton

Therefore, we can view unnecessary as being not "absolutely essential", the equivalent of not "necessary".

Modern - of or pertaining to the historical period following the Middle Ages. from Dictionary.com and Princeton Wordnet.

Because we believe that this definition may prove controversial, we warrant our definition with multiple sources, and that the etymological origin of this word is modernus, which entered into the English language in the years spanning 1490 to describe the period of time that the people living in that time had entered - namely, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and all times following such. Therefore, any time after the period of the Middle Ages may be considered "modern."

We provide the following observations:

1) The resolution provides that the Pro must merely advocate that guns are not absolutely necessary to society - that is, that society can continue to exist without guns. As the Pro, we are not advocating that guns are/or are not helpful to society - that is not the topic of this debate, nor are we defending it.

2) As such, the Pro must show a single instance within the limit of "modern society" in which guns were not "absolutely necessary" to the continued existence of the society to prove the statement "uns are unnecessary in society" true. We find warrant for this in the absolute nature of wording of the topic, which mandates that there must be no conceivable societal situation in which guns could be deemed "not absolutely essential" to the continuance of the society.

3) Therefore, the Con must not only refute all examples brought up by the Pro to win, but must also provide reasons why all society would collapse without the usage of guns.

4) Society as a whole is comprised of interactions between societies (ie, sovereign countries) and as well between individual citizens of countries. Therefore, to win the round, the Con must prove both of these pillars true - that inter-societal relations would collapse without guns and that citizens within individual societies could not exist without having guns.

We now move to our contentions.

Contention 1 - Guns are not necessary for international cooperation and existence.

Diplomatic relations between countries are multifaceted and broad. As the affirmative we hold that to say that diplomatic relations between countries rely in whole upon guns is false, and ignores the multi-dimensional aspect of these relations.

Subpoint A - Guns are the equivalent of mob mentality. They are not quiet, or pensive, and once they are used, can never be taken back. They are swift, indiscriminate, and merciless in usage.

They do not promote the mentality that is key to diplomatic relations - that of a chess master. Planned moves, calculation, and view of the situation as a whole are key to inter-societal exchange. We offer the examples of Iraq and Iran.

In an article entitled "Why Did the U.S. Invade Iraq?" by Jim Lobe, published on March 19, 2008 [1]

"The official reasons — the threat posed to the U.S. and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programmes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al Qaeda — have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed."

This was furthered in the article, "Democrats unconvinced on Iraq War" by Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin

"Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee."

After attending a classified briefing, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision" [3]

Despite this, the United States of America chose to take rash military action against Iraq. They utilized 'guns' in multiple senses. Literally, in the means that they used them in warfare against the country as a whole. Metaphorically, in that guns represent a rash, unforgiving mentality which does not take into account all factors that could and should play into a decision. [2]

This means that when our society relied largely on the gun, literally and metaphorically, rather than diplomatic relations, we ended up with:

4012 Soldiers dead [4]
85,000 Iraqi deaths [5]
$507 Billion debt [6]

However, our society doesn't always take this approach. In dealing with Iran, one of our most successful relations in the Middle East, we came to a peaceful, successful resolution through diplomatic relations - no violence (or guns) were necessary.

The United States and United Nations both viewed a nuclear Iran as a critical problem in the Middle East, one that may possibly be the spark of World War III. They quickly chose to take the route of diplomatic relations.

In the September 5, 2006 America.gov article entitled "United States Committed to Diplomacy in Iran Nuclear Dispute" the United States and United Nations affirmed the mentality of diplomacy.

"We are committed to diplomacy ourselves, but we're not going to negotiate … about negotiations," he said. The July 31 resolution asked Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities in its nuclear program, including research and development, and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities. "If the regime in Tehran meets those conditions, which are quite clear, straightforward, then there can be negotiations," McCormack told journalists September 5. The five permanent members of the Security Council -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- offered a package of incentives to Iran if it accepted the conditions, and threatened economic sanctions if it did not."

Over the next year, the National Intelligence Estimate - a report created from the collaboration of all 16 U.S. spy agencies - was developed. The unanimous conclusion that it came to was that Iran had stopped its nuclear weaponry program and - in accordance with the guidelines set down by the U.N. - had only pursued a peaceful nuclear development program. [7]

What this means is that Iran responded positively to the diplomatic relations of the United States and the United Nations. Without any military action taken by any group, without any guns, inter-societal exchange occurred. And this change occurred positively, even more so than when violence and force was used.

This situation lines up with the common human condition - people do not like being forced to do anything. In fact, actions that they may have been previously amenable to become hostile and impossible when they perceive being forced to do ssomething. Guns are just that - they are negative, where we require positive means. The truth is that in light of the evidence that we have provided, the negative process of force, and the usage and existence of guns are not necessary to the existence of modern society.

Due to length restrictions, sources will be posted next post.
Cooperman88

Con

First for the definitions. I do not accept anything about necessary or unnecessary. If you look to the actual resolution provided on facebook, you will see it says "unneeded." My reason for saying this will be proven now. Unneeded will then be not needed, for logical reasons. And needed according to the American Heritage Dictionary is defined as:
1: A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted
2: Something required or wanted
According to Mirriam-Webster:
1: To be in want
According to thefreedictionary.com:
1: A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted
2: To be in need or want
And lastly according to Princeton:
1: want: have need of
All of these definitions, including the one my opponent used, contains the word "want." My opponent leaves this word out. This cannot be since the resolution clearly says "unneeded." For the other definitions, modern is fine. I would here like to define the word "society." Society, according to dictionary.com, is defined as "a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members." Since my opponent failed to address or define this word, then you should allow this, as my opponent already had the chance to define it and chose not to. This means that I must show how guns are needed in each of the four categories provided, and my opponent must show how they aren't needd in the four categories.

Now for my opponent's arguments. His first and second arguments can be summed up by saying that guns aren't necessary to every aspect of society. I would first like to point out that the resolution uses the word "in" which does not in fact mean ALL aspects, it just means some aspects. So as the negative, I need to show that guns aren't needed in some aspects of society, and my opponent must show they are needed in some aspects of society. If we both do that, then you as the judge should vote for whoever proves their point in the MOST aspects of society. With my definition of society, I will show you how they are in fact needed for every aspect.

1. Protetion - If there is someone threatening your life, then you as a human being have the right to protect your life because it is an inalienable right gien to all human beings. Guns are extemely wanted in that aspect. They have the ability to scare someone away who is threatening your life. They are able to be effective at long range which gives you more of a chance to protect yourself, and sooner. They are loud, which can be used to alert others of a threatening situation. For example, if a burglar is in your house and you fire a shot, the neighbors might hear and call the cops. The noise also might scare the intruder. Guns can do enough damage to an individual threatening your protection that they are no longer a threat. This in fact is the biggest benefit guns have. These above reasons show that guns are in fact needed for protection.

2. Continuity - Sometimes there arises a situation in which a gun can help you in a situation that is threatening your very survival. God forbid this ever happen, but if it does then guns will help you stay alive. If you are lost in the wilderness for a long period of time, then a gun will help you hunt for food. If you did not have a gun, then it will be very hard to catch food. Yes you may scavange for food, but a gun can help you catch food that is much better for your body, and will provide nourishment for longer. Guns also provide continuity for the above mentioned reasons with protection. These examples again prove how guns are needed in continuity.

3. Security - This one is very closely related to protection. Use the same examples that I used there to apply here as well. Not only that, but guns can give fathers peace of mind. As Bill Engvall once said, he found a way to ensure that his daughters will always be brought home by a date on time. Show their date his gun collection. This is security of mind. There have been many fathers who worry about their daughters dating. If the date sees that his date's father has a large enough gun collection, then this might scare him into obeying that father's rules. This is one way security adds to security of mind. Another way it does this, is it allows home-owners security of mind by knowing they will be prepared for an intruder. Even if the situation never arises, the home-owner will know that they are prepared if it ever does. These examples once again prove how guns are needed in modern society.

4. Identity - Guns are crucial to the identity of some individuals. With the NRA being the largest non-governmental association, we see that people like to have their guns. I live in Wyoming, and there are a bunch of people who love to go out shooting prairie dogs for fun. I am one of those people. It is always fun to get a new gun to shoot. I find myself envying people's gun collections. If they have guns that I don't have, then it gives us something to talk about. Not only that, but people identify with people that have common interests. If our common interests are guns, then we find some of our identity in guns. Guns are also used to identify people who like to hunt. Wyoming is known for our game and wildlife areas. People who hunt, use rifles most of the time. If I see a friend of mine owns a rifle, then I assume he hunts. Granted, I may be wrong sometime, but usually not in the given circumstance. Hunting is another way to identify ourselves. These reasons once again prove how guns are needed in modern society.

The four ways I just showed how guns are needed in modern society is definitely enough if not more than enough to prove how my opponents first two arguments are completely false.

My opponents third argument says that all I have to do is disprove the examples brought up by himself/herself. I have easily done so. But then says I need to prove how guns are needed in ALL aspects of society. I have already said how I don't need to do that, but if you still think I do, then my opponent must show how guns are not needed in ALL aspects of society, which he has not done. I must now bring up the burdens argument. If my opponent does not affirm the resolution in all aspects, then he/she loses. As the negative, I only have to prove one. If I can do that, then the pro loses because he/she has not completely affirmed the resolution.

My opponents fourth argument is disproved by my definition of what society is. Society in fact does NOT include interactions between societies. The resolution says society, not societies. I believe that he intended to mean our society, which is what both my opponent and I have argued. So I don't have to show the interactions between societies. This moves on to his/her first contention saying that guns are not needed in international cooperaion. I have already proven that it does not have to.

As that is his only contention, you must look to how guns are in fact needed in modern society. I have shown you that at the beginning of this debate. My opponent also says that in order for the con to win, that I must prove both pillars he provides me to be false. Once again. This most certainly isn't true. Not only have I already shown you how the pillars aren't what society is defined as, but if you were to accept it, then I don't have to disprove both of them. Rather, I only have to disprove one of them. Use my four points under how guns are needed in society and apply them to his second pillar. If the affirmative does not affirm the entire resolution then he/she loses this debate. My opponent has failed to even show you how guns are unneeded in his second pillar. All he/she talks about is how guns are unneeded in the first pillar. This means that I am winning the second pillar and my opponent cannot win. TY
Debate Round No. 1
PublicForumG-d

Pro

I'm going to begin with refuting my opponent's claims and his refutation, as it appears in the flow, then if space permits, I'll move to new contentions.

@Resolution Phrasing: In speaking with tournament director Luke Cumbee, I asked if the wording could be changed from "unneeded" to "unnecessary" in light of the overwhelming one-sidedness of the topic at hand. He said that I could, and so the resolution stands as it was posted.

In light of the resolution as it stands, my opponent's entire section on "need" and "want" and all that it warrants falls, as it is not resolutional.

@All Aspects of Society: Despite my opponent's arguing semantics to an absurd degree, his "in" argument is wrong. "modern society" has no other limiting adjective other than "in", and therefore refers to society and all of its respective components. My opponent provided no warrant for why any intent other than the clear one should be used, so the observation of all aspects of society remains.

@Definition of society: My opponent's definition of society is narrow minded – it only looks at what society does. It completely ignores the running of the society and inter-personal relations. I ask my opponent to name one functional society that exists without its citizens having any interaction at all. Since none exist, the burden of inter-citizen relations still stands, as does inter-societal relations, based on that they are critical to a majority of societies in the scope of "modern".

Therefore, to win Con must show a majority of modern societies to whom guns are absolutely necessary to inter- citizen and societal relations. We accept his other criteria as the remaining aspects of society to be held for the round.

1) Protection; we contend that guns actually do not protect the citizens of a society because they actually lead to more violence than they prevent in both suicide and homicide. A study published [12 April 2007] in the Journal of Trauma found that across 50 States, home gun ownership was linked to an increase in the risk of gun-related suicide.

The Violence Policy Center in 2002 concluded that "homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns."

As for self-defense, the Department of Justice concluded that in 2005 there were "only 143 real justifiable uses of self defense." They state that other statistics on self-defense "are greatly exaggerated, and do not take into account the context of the situation to determine if the situation was actually justified." It provided this example, "Of course, some people seek the protection of a gun because they may be disproportionately likely to lead risky lives or associate with violent people."

My opponent poses a number of scenarios in which guns _could_ be helpful, but never ties it into the resolution to say why they were "absolutely necessary" to the continued existence of society. Further, when we see that multiple viable alternatives exist to using guns (police, running) we can see this point actually affirms the resolution. Finally, guns actually contribute to societal harm by being unjustifiably used on criminals. In his first contention, he talks about shooting a criminal. What about _his_ protection? Other viable means exist to remedy a burglary yet a choice which is the ultimate violation of protection – physical harm – is made. This not only nullifies gun benefits, but can be taken further – guns are not necessary to the scenario, which therefore turns this point to Pro.

Finally, the process of gun escalation actually brings more harm than protection. Gun escalation is where criminals continually compete to one-up police on weaponry to garner an advantage. For example, police and criminals both have pistols. Police look to gain the advantage in fighting, and so they upgrade their guns – but so do the criminals. This eventually leads to what we have now – AK47s being used regularly in the hands of street criminals.

I'd also point out how my opponent claims inter-citizen relations are not relevant, but then _only_ warrants all 4 of his arguments with inter-citizen analysis. Since his entire case is based off conflicting premises, it does not logically function as a whole to prove Con, and should be dropped in entirety.

His second contention also becomes a Pro point. He begins with "sometimes" – a clear indicator that in "other times" the gun is not necessary. My opponent further recognizes this when he says "yes, you may scavenge for food." Judge, this becomes a Pro point the instant my opponent conceded that other viable alternatives exist.

Despite this, his other examples are also flawed. American's with guns are not necessarily trained in the subtle art of hunting – nor does my opponent warrant this – so in fact, the "loud noise" that my opponent boasts of would actually scare more animals away than kill. Because of my opponent's lack of warrant and logic weigh this point as Pro in your RFD.

In his third contention, my opponent asked you to refer to his refuted examples in ‘protection'. I ask you to refer to my counter to that – gun escalation. I would ask, would you be more comfortable knowing that the person robbing you has a knife, or an automatic AK47 with hollow-point armor piercing shells?

However, despite my refutation of all of this, there is no link in any of my opponent's 3rd contention to his ‘warrants'. His entire contention centers around Jeff Foxworthy and a "father's sense of security." Yet how does this link to facilitating the continuance of society? It simply doesn't. When we look to my analysis on how guns are not necessary to continued societal existence, we see this point actually affirms the resolution.

On to his fourth contention on national identity. Again my opponent refutes himself. "Guns are crucial to the identity of _some_ people" and "Hunting is another way to identify ourselves." He shows, repeatedly and on his own how guns are only one aspect of the national identity. On that alone, this becomes a Pro contention. Despite this, my opponent takes a deliberately narrow view of what "national identity" is. National identity is how people view themselves as a whole – as a societal group. Guns clearly do not define that - national identity (especially in the recent years of America) has focused on a multitude of factors, including race, age, birthplace, political view, democraticness and amount of patriotism. Guns do not provide for any of these. While some Americans may identify themselves with guns, it is not a ‘national identity'. We would not consider the American Pie Throwers Association to be a part of the American national identity either. These other factors prove how guns are not absolutely necessary to society – therefore, this point affirms the resolution.

In this debate, I not only refuted all of his examples, but proved my case valid, and turned his points to support my position. My examples of Iraq and Iran, and all of the statistics therein, were hardly addressed, and by no stretch of the mind refuted.

In your decision, I ask you to weigh that on an international level (Iraq and Iran), guns are not necessary to society. On Protection, guns cause more harm than they solve. On the continuance of society, my opponent provides no link to necessity, while I prove they are not necessary. On Security, gun escalation and lack of warrant turn this point into Pro as well. As for identity, it is narrow minded and false to claim that America identifies itself by guns, or that its identity critically relies on guns. Please affirm.
1www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/19/7760/
2www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/19/7760/ www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
3www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64509-2002Sep10?language=printer
4www.icasualties.org/oif
www.iraqbodycount.org
Cooperman88

Con

Thank you to my opponent for providing an excellent debate thus far, and I will now proceed to the argumentation.

First and foremost I would like the judge to look at what society has been defined as in this round. My opponent claims that the way I define society does not include everything, yet fails to bring up a counter-interpretation of the word society. This means that when you are looking to how guns affect society, you will view society as per the definition I provided. As this is the only definition, and my opponent had the chance to give another, you should accept my definition of society in this round. I will get to why this is important later in my argument.

Secondly, let's look at the burden argument. This is the biggest and most important thing in this entire round. The pro debater has said in both of his speeches that I as the con must negate the entire resolution. This simply isn't true. I as the con must only prove that guns are necessary in one instance in modern society. If I can do that, then I win. On the flip side, the pro debater must prove they are unnecessary in all aspects of modern society. The resolution does not give him the liberty of excluding some, as the wording implies all. My opponent supports this analysis of the way the resolution is worded because he continues to say that we must look at the entirety of modern society. So I will grant him that one argument. That "in modern society" implies all of modern society. If you look to my first speech, you will see where I discuss the burdens argument. Then when you look to my opponents second speech, he does not tell you why this argumentation is wrong. So if I as the con prove that guns are useful in only one aspect of modern society, then the affirmative has not done his job of affirming the whole resolution. He has only affirmed a part of it, and must therefore lose.

My opponent says: "Therefore, to win Con must show a majority of modern societies to whom guns are absolutely necessary to inter- citizen and societal relations. We accept his other criteria as the remaining aspects of society to be held for the round." So as I have just proven to you, I don't have to show it is a majority, rather I have to show one of the six criterion of society; inter-citizen relations, societal relations, protection, continuity, security, or identity has guns being necessary. I will now do this.

According to the universal declaration of human rights article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Not only does this give people the right to not be intruded upon, but has protection of the LAW against intruders. Now I realize that wikipedia doesn't have the best reputation as far as being legitimate. But this site that I give you has been well researched, has where the individual got his/her information at the bottom, and is easily found on the internet also. This is just a compilation of states that have bills entitled "castle doctrine." http://en.wikipedia.org... This site specifically shows that thirty states have the castle doctrine, and one more state (ohio) is getting this castle doctrine. This doctrine relies on the idea that a man's home is his castle. And that an individual does not have to back down and allow an intruder into his home, but has the ability to use deadly force if necessary. So according to the laws of the majority of our states, and the U.N. declaration of human rights, we have the RIGHT to own guns and use them if necessary. Now my opponent said what about the right of the person breaking in? My first answer here is that as soon as he violated others' rights he gave up his rights. We see this in our system today. Felons do not have all the rights non-felons have. So the laws governing certain americans give them the right to use a gun on an intruder in their home. This proves exactly how guns are necessary in the aspect of protection and security.

Also on the topic of security, according to www.a-human-right.com when people are given the right to own guns in their homes criminals are less likely to break in. The example given is England. They allowed people to own firearms in their homes, and when they weren't allowed to, the number of intruders increased. This once again shows how owning guns is in fact necessary.

Those are two of the strongest points as to why guns are necessary for modern society. That means that you as a judge now have two areas of six where I have proven how guns are necessary. Now let's take a look at the six that my opponent has to prove and see how he is doing on those.

Foreign Relations: He gives many different sources showing how guns are not necessary. My first argument is that these only talk about Iraq and Iran. Since modern means after the medieval ages, I say that guns were necessary in dealing with Nazi Germany, Great Britain during the Revolutionary war, and the Confederate States of America in the civil war. (yes they were technically a country) So guns were necessary in that aspect of foreign relations in modern society. So he has not done a decent enough job of proving this one.

Societal Relations: My opponent says absolutely nothing on how guns are unnecessary in societal relations. There is absolutely zero argumentation done throughout any of his speeches. This means he is most definitely not fulfilling his burden here.

Protection: He argues that the number of homicides and suicides increase when a gun is in the home. While this may be true, it still doesn't stop the fact that the U.N. declaration of human rights gives people the right to stop intruders according to the laws of their land, which in most areas of the U.S. mean they can use deadly force. So he is not winning this argument either.

Continuity: He says that because I use the word "sometimes" it cannot be accepted. No statistic is every 100% except the number of people who are going to die. I can't include everything, and neither can he. He still doesn't tell you why my argumentation that I presented in my first speech is wrong. He just says that this doesn't apply everywhere. Once again, just the fact that it does apply somewhere gives me enough ground to win the debate.

Security: He says refer to his argumentation made on gun violence escalating. I already proved how while this may not be a good thing, still does not take away their right to own and use a gun on an intruder. Not only that, but he says that you would feel better knowing that an intruder is holding a knife, not an ak47. But to assume that there would never be guns is absurd. He never proves that criminals still won't use guns. A criminal wouldn't use a gun because it is illegal. He/She obviously has no qualms with committing a crime, and therefore wouldn't care if they broke the law by having a gun. He also says here how it doesn't link to the continuance of society, but I don't have to prove every aspect of society needs guns, just one.

Identity: Once again he says that because everyone doesn't identify with guns means that this doesn't work. Not everyone has to identify with guns in order for it to be a part of our identity. Identity implies diversity. Just the fact that not everyone does identify with guns means that it does play a part in some people's identity. So he really has no argumentation on this one either.

When you are looking at where to vote, you can look to the six criterion that my opponent and I agree on and ask yourself which ones I am winning. When you see that the argumentation on the pro side is either not there, or completely lacking, then you must vote for the con.

Thank you to both my opponent and my judge. I wish you luck in the next round
Debate Round No. 2
PublicForumG-d

Pro

As promised we define unneeded and unnecessary as one and the same - "absolutely essential".

I will now move to the points my opponent brought up in his 2nd constructive.

@Definition of society: My opponent claimed that I merely criticized his definition without providing another.

To quote my 2nd constructive. "It completely ignores the running of the society and inter-personal relations." We agreed that the four criteria laid out in the 1st constructive for "society" were valid, in combination with these other two criteria: Inter-societal and inter-citizen relations. So his claim that I merely criticized falls.

@Burden: My opponent is attempting to set an abusive burden. To quote him

"I as the con must only prove that guns are necessary in one instance in modern society. If I can do that, then I win. On the flip side, the pro debater must prove they are unnecessary in all aspects of modern society. The resolution does not give him the liberty of excluding some, as the wording implies all."

For some reason, my opponent seems to feel (again, without any warrant) that _he does_ have "the liberty of excluding some, [despite that] the wording implies all."

Despite the fact that we warranted our secondary observation (burden) in Pro 1st constructive, we will modify that burden to be an judging on balance. Therefore, we ask your reason for decision to be "When viewed in context of all society from the Middle Ages to now, are guns more absolutely necessary, or less absolutely necessary to the existence of society?" We feel this concession will get rid of the semantics debate that is going on, and allow us to progress to real issues, and that we have still shown that on balance (all 6 criteria have been proven Pro) guns are not necessary to modern society. The only other alternative judging method which has been warranted for the round is the warranted one we provide in Observation 2. No such warrant exists in any other burden. The Pro fulfills the criteria for both methodologies.

My opponent then moves on to mention the UN declaration of human rights, available here www.un.org/Overview/rights.html citing "Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." as a warrant.

I still ask my opponent, how does this prove that society as a whole could stop existing without guns? Where is the link? Just because they have a _right_ to not be forced to do/undergo something does not prove in any way that this will actually lead to societal downfall, at all.

We provide this example, also from the UN Declaration. "People have a right not to be enslaved" however people in many countries are compelled to serve masters against their will [8]. Their right was violated, yet society still exists. In fact, nearly every one of the rights listed by the UN Declaration is violated by one nation or another. Yet society still exists.

We're not debating the moral merits of guns, nor whether or not they can help society. As per my first observation, the resolution specifically asks, are guns absolutely, indelibly necessary. My opponent provides no proof, nor a link between the downfall of society and his claims, and so we can see that they fall.

My opponent then goes on to cite a source on England. What he does not realize, however, is that the problems of having legalized guns (the increased suicide rate, the increased homicide rate, and the increase in gun escalation) actually outweighs his statistic.

Also, he does not refute my statistic on how minute the number of justified self-defense slayings are. So when we see that, and when we view these problems with legalized guns, we must wonder - on what methodology were the studies in England conducted? Did they take into account all of the possible criteria? Proper and adequate enforcement by officials? Administrative incentives to do so? Multilateral buy-in by the populace? My opponent provides a very narrow analysis, which is "a mile wide and an inch deep." as the old saying goes. When we realize that so many problems come from legalized guns - which have not been disputed, nor are they disputable, as they are sourced to some of the most reliable sources in existence, and confirmed by multiple independent organizations - we must realize that there _must_ have been other mitigating factors in the situation in England, which make this argument fall.

My opponent finally addresses my Iraq and Iran point - barely. He does not refute anything I say, but rather claims that I have "not done a decent enough job of proving this one." As there is no refutation, my arguments still stand - which proves that guns are not absolutely necessary to societal existence; we dealt with Iran in one of our most successful Mid-East interactions _ever_ in a way not requiring guns.

However, to hammer this point home, I will list a number of occasions in which diplomacy, rather than "guns", prevailed.

Cuban Missile Crisis; after "the two sides [USSR, US] exchanged many letters and other communications" the countries came to the conclusion that the missiles should be removed from Cuba. [9]

Chinese and Indonesian conflicts: The two have come together diplomatically to work together for mutual benefit [10]

End of Cold War: The Cold War ended not at the point of a gun, but on diplomatic relations. [11]

Judge, its pretty clear to see that every single country that has existed since the 1500s has not relied upon guns to do its foreign affairs. These are memorable matters, but we cannot ignore the small matters, in which nations cooperate every day diplomatically. My opponents own source, the United Nations, is the personification of this. They are a group of nations committed to diplomatic relations with each other. They prove that guns are not necessary to intersocietal relations.

Next, my opponent talks about Protection. However, his only counter is that they have a "right" - which I have already proven is not inherently connected (and no other warrant is provided) to the continuance of society. When we view the logic I presented in my 2nd Constructive, we see that Protection is still a Pro point.

Following, my opponent talks about Continuity. Before any of my analysis enters, he admits to his contradiction of the resolution - only sometimes are guns necessary. This proves the resolution true. But lets put that aside. In my 2nd constructive, I refuted his remaining examples as well. This was never disputed, and so stands.

Security: His refutation of my criticisms is the "right" to own a gun - yet this flawed premise still does not take away from the undisputed negative effects on society which guns clearly have. He then misses the point of my analogy on gun escalation - that because gun escalation occurs to such a severe degree, it causes societal harm.

Identity: My opponent restates my point, but makes a critical concession. By saying that if anyone identifies with something, it is a part of our identity, he ironically "shoots himself in the foot." If every single group in the existence of all modern society is to be considered a part of national identity, then it is ludicrous to say that any one factor is _absolutely necessary_ to the continuation of national identity as a whole. Let's put it in perspective. For the Con to be true, without the NRA (and such organizations) all forms of national identity in all modern societies would have to completely collapse. This is a ludicrous premise, and falls.

Judge, Pro provides logic and warrants for all claims and refutation, on each point. Con varies between assumptions, ad hom attacks, and flawed analysis. The voting issues in the round are the 6 criteria. I have shown how each of them support Pro over Con, and ask you to do the same. Thank you.

Sources posted in comments for space restrictions.
Cooperman88

Con

I am going to start out with something that my opponent seems to be confused on. We determined that the phrase "in modern society" includes all aspects of society. We both agreed upon that. But when he says that I need to prove how guns are necessary in all aspects of society, he is wrong. He forgets that I am the con. As the pro, his job is to uphold the resolution. All of the resolution. He is for it, and I am against it. I am not trying to uphold any part of the resolution, he is trying to uphold it all. So when you look at what the burdens are, you see that he is indeed supposed to prove how guns are unnecessary in each of the six criterion provided. If he fails to uphold all six, then he has not upheld the resolution. As the negative, all I have to do is get the pro to not uphold the resolution, and I win. I can do that by only proving that guns are necessary in one of the six criterion provided. He says that you as a judge should not hold either of us to all, but rather whoever does the most. This sounds like a good idea, but it simply cannot happen. Don't let him change his burden this late in the game. His burden has always been to uphold every aspect of the resolution just like every other pro debater has to uphold every aspect of their resolution. It is as simple as the rules of the game. When my opponent specifically says ""modern society" has no other limiting adjective other than "in", and therefore refers to society and all of its respective components." then he makes his burden to be supporting all aspects of society. If that's what the resolution means, then he must uphold it.

Now to talk about the six points of society. First I will discuss the two my opponent brought up, and then the four I brought up.

1. Inter-citizen relations: When you look to my last speech, I specifically said that my opponent never addresses this part of society. When you look to this round also, my opponent STILL never addresses this topic. This is the first place you are going to vote for the con. As soon as the pro doesn't uphold his burden by proving how guns are unnecessary in inter-citizen relations, then you cannot vote for him. If I were to start a debate that said public cameras are bad in banks and parks, but never addressed parks, then I cannot win that round as I haven't upheld the resolution. The same applies here. So that is the first, biggest, and easiest reason to vote for me. I should be able to stop, but so far I have used all 8,000 characters each time and would like to do that here as well.

2. Inter-societal relations: When you look to my last speech I gave three examples of inter-societal relations that used guns. None of them were addressed. When my opponent in his last speech says "Judge, its pretty clear to see that every single country that has existed since the 1500s has not relied upon guns to do its foreign affairs." Notice the EVERY in that sentence. Is it clear that EVERY country has not used guns? I don't think so. Especially since I have clearly provided three examples of countries that did. But now to disprove the examples my opponent just gave. Cuban-Missile crisis: we sent a blockade of naval ships and threatened to shoot down any ship that passed through our blockade. We sent marines to covertly overthrow their government in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs. The Chinese cannot be praised on their "negotiation" tactics especially with the overtaking of Tibet. And the cold war, we used what my opponent called metaphorical guns to end that one. It was a game of let's see whoever can get the most weapons the fastest. So yes, in all senses, his examples used guns. Now let's get some more examples. Myanmar protests. Six Day war Middle East. 1st Gulf War. WWI and WWII. Peru vs. Ecuador. French and Indian War. Dharfur. Congo. Just to name a few conflicts. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY has not used guns? I think not. And especially with the instances of both world wars I can see the fall of societies without the use of guns. So yes, in the instance of inter-societal relations, society falls without guns. It is proven through history. That again should be enough for me to win the round.

Now I wish I had the space to argue the other four parts of society. Regrettably I do not. So I will now go to the ones I feel strongest about.

National Identity: National Identity is what sets us apart from other countries. America is seen as the world's superpower. Why is that? Is it because of our economy? Probably not as our dollar is currently falling and is half as much as the pound, and the euro is one and a half times our dollar. Is it our size? Most definitely no, since we just got 300 million and China and India have already reached 1 billion. Is it our government? No, most other countries hate George Bush and his policies. So what then makes us so powerful? The answer is simple. It is our military. Teddy Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Our stick is the biggest. And we use it. So our national identity is also dependent upon our guns in this aspect. If for some reason we were to get rid of our guns, then our national identity would in fact no longer be there. We would have lost that part of our society. So this is a third example of how our society needs guns.

So let's look at some analysis here on who should win the round and why. On the pro side you see that he must uphold every one of the six aspects of the resolution. You see that he is failing in inter-citizen relations as for the reasons stated above in this speech. You see that he is failing in inter-societal relations as per the reasons stated above in this speech. And lastly you see that he is failing in the National Identity aspect of society. With these three examples glaring, you see that the affirmative has not upheld his burden in proving guns unnecessary in three of the six criterions. This is more than enough to vote against him. But now let's look to the con side of the topic. Inter-societal relations is easily being won by me because my opponent failed to respond to my examples, and I showed how his examples did in fact use guns. National Identity also goes to me because I showed you how our National Identity collapses without guns because that is what our national identity is dependant upon. To be completely honest with you, there has been no argumentation from either side as to Inter-citizen relations, but the burden that guns aren't necessary in inter-citizen relations falls to my opponent since that is one of the six aspects of society he is supposed to proving guns aren't necessary to. (hopefully that last sentence made sense.) So there are three big, fat, ugly, reasons that the pro cannot win this round.

In his last paragraph, he says that my arguments were based off of assumptions, ad hominem attacks, and flawed analysis. I would first like to say that I did not make any ad hominem attacks. And if I did, then I assure you that was completely unintentional and I am sorry. I would never mean to personally attack a fellow debater in round. I try to hold myself to a professional standard, and if I lacked in that aspect then I do honestly apologize. As for the other two, when you look to my argumentation you will see clear logic that backs up points that prove how guns are in fact necessary for modern society.

I thank you for this absolutely wonderful debate. Possibly the best I have ever had on this site. I wish you luck in other rounds of the tournament. I would also like to thank the judge, yraelz, for taking his time and judging this round. I hope you appreciated this debate and didn't find it boring. If you have any comments or things to say, then pleas email me at bigfootjoke88 @ yahoo.com. Thank you again for this wonderful debate.

VOTE CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
Pro, very good use of your first round, instead of waiting until the next round you could just post the sources in the comments section.
Con, nice use of Bill Engvall. Your fourth point assumes that were talking about the US, however the res only talks about the unspecific "society", try to avoid such a mistake in the future. You also say that you have attacked all of pros examples, but you never (as of yet) talked about the Iraq war or the diplomatic relations with Iran. earlier in your case you said that the res was only talking about "most" aspects of society, but then you change your mind to "all", this is semi-unfair, but pro tried the same thing, so ill let it stand, as long as you prove something necessary. as for your attack on society including that societies interactions with other societies, I'm inclined to agree with pro, because no society exists without interacting with its neighbors, and those interactions help define what the society is/feels about things it might not otherwise come in contact with (like other forms of government).
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
Pro, lay off the debate jargon, not everyone is a debater and might not understand what you are talking about. A conflicting premise (inter-citizenry relations) does not constitute dropping cons case, but it does make that "pillar" stand. The ak-47 w/armor piercing shells point is a bit exaggerated, with the exception of militias; most criminals do not have that kind of weaponry. Con used Bill Engvall, not Jeff Foxworthy; they are like night and less night.
Con, pro did define society, it was the "two pillars" bit. The fact that you people are still debating definitions greatly saddens me, and is starting to get annoying, let the definitions go, debate! Same for burden! Next person to argue semantics is getting a proverbial pie to the face! If your going to cite stuff (which I wholeheartedly support), then instead of using the (amazing) "illegitimate" source from wikipedia, use the ones wikipedia cites. Makes you all the more credible. The UN charter does not give the right to bear arms, even if it did the debate is not about the right to bear arms, it is about whether or not guns are necessary. Also, gave a website that you said proved that guns inhibit crime. weather or not that's true (I doubt it from what you said, correlation doest equal causation) treat this like a regular debate round, quote the part of your source that your using, just like you would normally do. Because you did not do that, I am dropping this point.
Pro, PROVERBIAL PIE TO THE FACE!!! But thank you for trying to move past semantics. Con was not talking about your inter-societal point when he said you have not met the burden, but the inter-citizenry burden, which you have not mentioned (that I can see), let alone proven. Good job crystallizing the round.
Con, this is not policy or LD; this is its own thing. The pro does not automatically have the burden of proof, you have a burden (albeit a much smaller one) to disprove not only your opponents points, but the resolution as well.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
this was a great debate (despite both sides getting bogged down in semantics, which got so annoying that at one point I got an actual headache), and it was very close. Congrats to both sides for doing an excellent job.
Because the 6 points in the round (inter citizenry relations, inter societal relations, protection, continuity, security, and identity) were successfully rebutted by pro. except inter citizenry, which con never talked about either, so its moot; inter societal with pros mention of all the times society's interacted without guns (con almost took this with his examples when society's choose to use guns); guns cause a arms escalation that makes security/protection worse; and identity with guns aren't apart of our national identity. As such, I vote pro.
Because of size limits, I am posting this in reverse order.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Judging Round: Topic 6--PublicForumG-d vs. Cooperman88

This was an insanely close round guys, good job to both of you!

I'm going to be going straight down the flow with this decision.

You guys start the round arguing over definitions which ends up getting negated halfway through so I didn't bother having to make any decisions here what-so-ever.

After this point Pro argues that Con must advocate all. Con turns around and of course argues that Pro must advocate all, which goes dropped by Pro in the second round. Thus I end up flowing the point across to the Con side and ignoring Pro's appeal to equal burden in the 3rd round. Burden = Pro must affirm all 6 points.

Then we have the society argument which turns into you guys advocating that there are 6 planks to modern society.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
1). Inter-societal. The Pro argues some pretty sound points in first speech which end up going dropped in Con's first speech. Con picks it up again, with 4 sentences, in his second speech after Pro has already advocated that Con dropped. Thus I must give this point to the Pro.

2. Inter-Citizen. This was the largest point for me, took me almost 30 minutes to side on. No one in this debate puts anything directly on the flow under Inter-citizen. So my main problem was whether or not I should count the homicide, self defense and fathers/daughters points as inter-citizen points also. During his second round Pro says,

"I'd also point out how my opponent claims inter-citizen relations are not relevant, but then _only_ warrants all 4 of his arguments with inter-citizen analysis."

Thereby I ended up flowing all 3 of these points under inter-citizen along with a personal identity point on Con's side. I must give this point to Pro under the protection turn (guns cause homicides) and the idea that people identify themselves with many many different things. No one thing is necessary.

3. Protection- This point was well argued in Con's first round but absolutely turned in Pro's second round. Not only that but two viable alternatives were offered that were never argued by Con. Con's second round introduced the idea of human rights along with arguing the turn under the empirical example from England. Pro used his third round to outweigh the england example (more break ins) with Suicides/Homocides/and the self defense statistic; Pro also pointed out that human rights had no link (empirically denied through other country examples) what-so-ever and was irrelevant.. Con dropped the contention in his last round. I must give it to Pro.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
4. Continuity- The point began with Con citing hypothetical situations. This would have been good if the rest of the debate had not been stationed more in the statistic area. Pro came back by mentioning that there were viable alternatives and that this only applied to some people as Con had said. Con argued that Pro must show it uneeded all the time but then conceded in that they were talking about all of society. Pro comes back arguing that he doesn't need to show it for all he simply needs to advocate that society would continue without. Con drops in his final speech, I must give to Pro.

5. Security - Con beings by arguing that fathers can protect their daughters through means of a deterrent and home owners will be assured that no one will break in. Pro comes back arguing the viable alternatives which I end up partially buying and then puts a no link argument between the fathers argument and societal continuance. Pro also argues gun escalation. Con drops the fathers argument and instead argues the rights argument along with the idea that criminals will still have guns. Pro turns the gun escalation by outweighing it and saying it causes more societal harm. This was probably the most flimsy point in the round but Con ends up dropping it in his last speech. Thus I give to pro.

6. Identity- The con starts out by giving a personal example of how he and his friends identify themselves through guns. Pro turns around and offers the viable alternative argument, coupled with the idea that we are speaking of a societal whole and not just the individual. The viable alt goes dropped by Con but he argues that we need to examine this on a per person basis in response to the societal whole argument. Pro comes back in his third round with this statement to counter,
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
"My opponent restates my point, but makes a critical concession. By saying that if anyone identifies with something, it is a part of our identity, he ironically "shoots himself in the foot." If every single group in the existence of all modern society is to be considered a part of national identity, then it is ludicrous to say that any one factor is _absolutely necessary_ to the continuation of national identity as a whole."

Con turns around in his final round and begins to argue the point on the national level instead of the individual level. However the entire point is completely new and thus I cannot vote on it at all. Therefor I must also give the 6th point to the Pro.

Tips:

PublicForumG-D: There is only you in the round. I realize that being a public forum team means you generally use the royal we to encompass your debate partner, yourself, and your position. However saying, "I" flows a lot better in online debate. Aside from that your debating was very smooth, you offered nice road maps and pretty conclusions.

CooperMan88: I loved your round all the way through, it wasn't until the very last round that you lost it. Don't bring up completely new points in your final speech, a judge will not bother voting on those, you spent almost an 8th of your final round doing this. Furthermore you dedicated another 8th of your speech to saying thank you and defending yourself against ad hominem attacks. I realize these are both nice things to do, but if it means sacrificing 3 of your points in the process don't do it! I think you would have easily had your opponent beat on the Security issue if you had taken a couple moments to argue it in your final speech.

Aside from that your rounds flowed very nice, your text was very clear and coherent. Your ideas were easy to follow. Very good job advocating the burden of proof argument. =)
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
So I'm making my decision in readable top to bottom order. Start with the top one and read down.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hahaha, I guess this is my vote isn't it..... Goes in search of a coin to flip. >.>
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by 1NCP 8 years ago
1NCP
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by retributions-end 8 years ago
retributions-end
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by righteous-reply 8 years ago
righteous-reply
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JeffGordon 8 years ago
JeffGordon
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by HoldenMcGroin 8 years ago
HoldenMcGroin
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Loveless 8 years ago
Loveless
PublicForumG-dCooperman88Tied
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:30