The Instigator
Rosenley
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
BANANAMEN
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should security guards have guns in Canada?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Rosenley
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 60054
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Rosenley

Pro

Hello, I am a new debater on this website and I am looking for someone to debate with. The subject for today's debate, is should security guards have guns in Canada. Now i am going to be the Pro side today because i want to try something a little bit harder.

My opening statement is, Security guards should carry guns to better equip themselves so in dangerous situations, they can defend themselves.
BANANAMEN

Con

Hello my name Bananamen i think that Security Guards should not have guns because they are not proffesniolly trained to have them its like giving a gun to a kid. i think they should have tazers instead
Debate Round No. 1
Rosenley

Pro

If security guards were to have guns, they would of course and by law have to be trained. They would have to go through a course to make sure that they are well capable of shooting a firearm.

The bad thing about tazers is they don't shoot that long of a distance. Although, the security guards are not getting the guns so they are more capable of shooting a far distance, but so they are more capable of defending themselves from other people with firearms.

It is very important that are security guards are safe.
BANANAMEN

Con

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Debate Round No. 2
Rosenley

Pro

I can see you are not talking this seriously? what if your parent (or a guardian, or even someone you cared about) was a security guard, and the next day he or she encountered a man with a gun. If they had a gun they would be able to defend themselves but if they didn't they could not. Now imagine your father dying because he did not have the tools to defend himself.
BANANAMEN

Con

well they can call backup and yeah if they had guns they really wounldnt be security anymore they would be Police cause security guards are for securing places not for shooting guns and if they had guns there wouldnt be any security guards anymore.
Debate Round No. 3
Rosenley

Pro

Ok, but i would prefer you use grammar.

REBUTTAL:

In the security business, lots of sites are a 1 to 2 man job. (around construction sites etc.) So you cant really call for backup when there is only 1 to 2 officers on site.

So if guns were given to security guards all of them would be gone?

ARGUMENT:

Security guards in British Columbia, Canada have to go through the JIBC (Justice Institute of British Columbia) BST (Basic Security Training)

Mandatory BST training is 40 hours in length, and focuses on the following content:

Professionalism & Ethics
Legal Studies
Report Writing
Personal Safety

In all of Canada, there are similar things to the JIBC.

In these training programs, they would have to add a part for gun training.

RESOURCES:
http://www.jibc.ca...
BANANAMEN

Con

8=============================================D
Debate Round No. 4
Rosenley

Pro

Really are you serious? this is supposed to be serious, anyways i believe i should win because you have really not presented any good arguments.

I guess it was a good debate, you need to take it more seriously in your future.

Thanks for debating with me!
BANANAMEN

Con

8=================================D
8llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllD
8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
800000000000000000000000000000000000000D
MUSHROOM TIPS EVERYWHERE
ROSENLEY HOPE U BORN IN H3LL

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
RosenleyBANANAMEN
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Is RFD really necessary? Pro had good conduct and no argument Pro made was refuted. Also, BANANAMEN, trolls should at least entertain their audience.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
RosenleyBANANAMEN
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Ordinarily I wouldn't vote on something like this, but you definitely deserve some extra points for Bananamen's atrocious conduct. I happen to disagree with you on the gun issue, and my understanding is that Canada probably doesn't have a sufficient violence problem to justify their issuance. In a debate with a stronger opponent you would be expected to employ statistics, historical, criminal and social evidence to support your case. That being said, Pro is the clear victor. I hope your future opponents are more interesting and respectful.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RosenleyBANANAMEN
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Between Con's atrocious conduct and failure to present a coherent case, the win here is obviously to Pro.