The Instigator
Cmm6897
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
fdsaBIG
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should universal background checks exist in the United States?

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...
Cmm6897
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 59799
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Cmm6897

Pro

At this moment universal background checks are not mandatory in the United States, although many polls show 90% of the public think there should be universal background checks. I will be arguing for the implementation of universal background checks
fdsaBIG

Con

oh i toets agree... im guna need a complete list of all your poops from last july till now and ima need you to update it as well
Debate Round No. 1
Cmm6897

Pro

I assume you are satirically referring to universal background checks,and claiming they are an invasion of privacy in a sense but the same way when you get on a plane you sacrifice your right to privacy because of the possible danger you could pose, when you buy a gun you should sacrifice a bit of your privacy in order to keep the public safe. If your argument is that background checks are invasion of privacy then by that logic you are saying that anyone should be able to get on a plane without being searched or having their passport scanned because it is an invasion of privacy.
fdsaBIG

Con

nope i just wanna see ya poops ;)
Debate Round No. 2
Cmm6897

Pro

Thought so but you have to admit I made a good argument out of it hahaha!
fdsaBIG

Con

fdsaBIG forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
This debate is a good example of how to get banned.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Cmm6897fdsaBIGTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Cmm6897fdsaBIGTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Cmm6897fdsaBIGTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: The only reason I disagree with Pro - and I wish I could have been Con, as obviously Con was just screwing around and didn't want to partake in an actual debate - is because that would cause employers or whoever to judge based on your past, whether it be yesterday or sixteen years ago. I know people who have gone to prison and are now incredibly well off, working in corporate positions. Mind you, they went to prison a dozen years ago, but I can guarantee you if their employers did a background check to that caliber, they most likely wouldn't have even been looked at twice. Universal background checks cause an immidiate bias, even if it's an "irrational" one.