The Instigator
mattkepner
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should Guns Be Banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 68397
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

mattkepner

Con

No they should not... you cannot overturn an amendment... that has only been done once in the history of then United States, and that decision was to stop gang violence during the prohibition. (18th overturned by 21st). Guns do not make people kill people it is the people themselves that decide that for themselves... even if they do ban guns... there would just be underground black marketing just like during the prohibition... everyone would just disobey the system... the government has this weird idea that if they make something illegal people would just stop cold turkey... but it just doesn't work that way... obeying someones law just for the f*ck of it is not part of human nature in fact it goes against everything in human nature... so do you think it should be illegal?
Emilrose

Pro

Accepted.

Con states:

"you cannot overturn an amendment... that has only been done once in the history of then United States."

In that case, you have contradicted your first point and in fact one can overturn an amendment if necessary.

The issue is that guns make it easier for people to kill other people. With easier access to guns, comes more gun related crime incidents. Anything that leads to more violence in society and causes cases such as mass shootings, should logically restricted and made less available.

"there would just be underground black marketing just like during the prohibition... everyone would just disobey the system."

I'd first note that Con does not provide any evidence for this assumption. As stated previously, the main positive to gun regulation is the fact there would be less gun crime and less shootings. If carrying a gun carried criminal penalties, then there's nothing to suggest that "everyone" would indeed disobey the system.

"the government has this weird idea that if they make something illegal people would just stop cold turkey... but it just doesn't work that way."

Again, the motivation is decreasing the amount of incidents related to gun crime. By outlawing or restricting gun ownership, the crime rate (which should be a priority to any government) would lessen and it would be made less easy for people to commit large-scale gun attacks.

"obeying someone's law just for the f*ck of it is not part of human nature in fact it goes against everything in human nature."

Once again Con offers no evidence or source to support this assertion. In fact, Con may as well state that no laws should be in place because following them supposedly goes against human nature. This would include well-recognized laws such as the criminality of murder, rape, pedophilia, assault, etc.

Would Con go as far as to suggest that these should also not be laws because they contradict what he considers "human nature"? The fact is that laws are put in place to maintain the structure of society and to protect to the rights of citizens. As guns heavily contribute to violence, making them less easy to access would serve as more of a benefit than detriment to society.

[1.] http://listverse.com...


Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@RomanCatholic
Your RFD seems lacking (I've seen thousands of worse ones... but it could use refinement) "All pro did was rebuttals. Pro did better job but did not state argument/used listverse as only source."

Breaking it apart piece by piece "All pro did was rebuttals." While this is true, what baring does it have on the effectiveness of the rebuttals? It does stand, but not very well.

However it falls apart here: "used listverse as only source." How would pro using that as her only source, gives sources to con? I agree with any sentiment that it was worthless (it was just tossed on at the end, no number not linking to the argument), yet that is not acceptable justification for giving sources to the person who had none.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
That is literally one of the worst votes I've *ever* seen.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
That vote is getting reported.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
mattkepnerEmilroseTied
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 even managed to tie con's arguments to rape. I mean no offense by this, but she in a metaphorical sense raped his arguments, and even made his arguments rape themselves (catching them directly countering each other).
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 1 year ago
black_squirrel
mattkepnerEmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is more like a rant. Con's argument was difficult to read because of bad punctuation. Pro pointed out the contradictions in Con's argument. But just 1 round does not make for a good debate.