The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Resolved: that guns should not be allowed to felons

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: 1/22/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,506 times Debate No: 14466
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Im going pro for the resolution that guns should be allowed to feons


I thank the opponent for this interesting albeit strange topic of debate. This will be very interesting indeed because of its very unique nature. I look forward to his/her rebuttal.
And also, as a forewarn, if there is some issue on my interpretation of the wordings, please see Caveat below. I must also urge the voters to remember to read Voting Standards after reading my contentions.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!! Let's have fun :D
I'd like to first point out the apparent discrepancy between the resolution the opponent is supporting and the actual position that he/she is arguing. This is a blatant and flagrant invasion of CON ground, as he/she would be able to abusively change stance at whim. Therefore, CON should automatically have the win.
But as is courtesy of debate, I will address HIS/HER argument. I will assume that the PRO is for felons owning guns and that the resolution is to be rephrased as thus: "Resolved: that guns should be allowed to felons."

Should: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):

Felon: a purulent infection at the end of a finger or toe in the area surrounding the nail

Gun: A gun is a muzzle or breech-loaded projectile-firing weapon.

Allow: let have; "grant permission"; "Mandela was allowed few visitors in prison"
Burden Of Proof:
On the Instigator/PRO. The opponent must prove that felons must have guns. He/She must be able to effectively defend against all of CON's rebuttal/rebuke. Failure to do so equates to CON's victory.
Contention 1: Inanimate Objects Cannot Own/Possess.

1) Inanimate objects cannot possess/own
2) That which does not move is inanimate [1]
3) Felons is an infection located at fingertip thus immobile. [2]
4) Felons are inanimate (2, 3)
5) Felons cannot possess/own (1, 4)

Felon cannot "have" guns, as it is an inanimate object--an infection. So there is no point in allowing them firearms.

Contention 2: No Harms/Need.

The opponent has yet to address why the felons need posses guns. Ignoring the (profile pic) that the notion is, the fact is, there is no viable reason as to why felons should ever possess guns. They are inanimate. There is not one hypothetical situation wherein they need to defend themselves. Thus, there is no reason for them to be allowed firearms.
Contention 3: Felons are inherently harmful presence.
Even if I were to concede that felons can indeed own, it would prove more harm than good to allow them to own firearm. Felons are infections on the human body (see Definition above). Infection both by definition proper and connotation is a malignant presence detrimental to the host--therefore human kind in general.
Regardless of the impossibility of felons owning something, The effect of ownership of firearm by something that is adverse to humanity per se may be comparable to that of Al-Qaeda's possession of WMD.

The Voters must vote by the persuasiveness and coherency of the debater's argument and not by prejudice.


Prejudice: any preconceived opinion or feeling
Opinion: A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue
Topic: the subject or theme of a discourse or of one of its parts.

Topic is Felon. Opinion is voter's thought on what felon is. Prejudice is voter's preconceived thought on what felon is. Prejudice does not meet voting standard. Ergo, the voter's preconceived thought on what felon is should not affect this debate.
As the "King of harassing people" put it, "You don't vote based on pity or based on your own opinions prior to the debate, but who did a better job with the argument."[1]
The voter is to judge only per strength of argument.

[1] (8th comment)
The fact that opponent failed to define the terminology in the first round meant that he/she was leaving the debate open to the interpretation of the CON. The opponent cannot and should not offer a radically alternative definition to the debate in the second round, as it will most definitely breach CON's argumentation and ability to argue against it.
What he/she can do is offer a slight modification of the terms in the context of which the terms are already defined.

Debate Round No. 1


Opponent concedes to all my contentions and drops all of his. My contentions still stand.
Debate Round No. 2


Con wins this debate i surrender


Extend all argument. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3


Macho forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4


Macho forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Vote CON
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gavin.ogden 7 years ago
Hey, smart guy. Your resolutions are opposite in regard to the heading and your opening. In one you say you are for, and the other you say you are against. Which is it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, argument/sources to Con.