Stand Your Ground Laws do More Good Than Harm
Debate Rounds (4)
Before I say anything further, I would like to lay out the structure of the debate.
Round 1) Acceptance/Rules
Round 2) Refutations/Main Arguments.
Round 3) Refutations/Main Arguments. (New Arguments Accepted)
Round 4) Rebuttal. (Refutations, Overlook, Weighing Impacts, No New Arguments).
I would also like to lay out a set of rules for both my opponent and I to adhere to.
1. Swear words are strictly prohibited.
2. Being a jerk is also prohibited.
3. Structure MUST be followed.
4. Sources with proper links MUST be cited.
5. We both MUST NOT offend each other or any readers.
Any failure to follow these rules will result in points being taken away by the voters, and ultimately loss of the debate.
Thank you for reading and I eagerly await a worthy opponent.
1. Stand Your Ground Law: A type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation.
2. Force: Any type of physical harm to a person.
3. Evade: To escape or avoid before self-defense is used.
4. Dangerous: Able or likely to cause harm or injury.
Now, I would like to present my initial three arguments.
1. Stand your ground laws do more good than harm because they reduce crime Stand your ground laws are proven to beneficial to crime rates. According to "More guns, Less crime", by John Lott these laws reduce murder rates by 9% and other violent crimes by 11%. http://en.wikipedia.org... The impact of this is there is no harm associated with a law that lessens murder and other violent crimes rates.
2. Stand your ground laws do more good than harm because the elderly and disabled can protect themselves from more threatening people. According to BBC A 27-year-old man has been arrested of murder after an elderly man was fatally stabbed. The man was 73. CBS Baltimore County Police are searching for the person who murdered 80-year-old Willard Dimitri Rykowski. http://m.bbc.com... According to the Baltimore County police, they were called to his home on Third Avenue in Halethorpe to check on him last week. When they arrived, they found Rykowski. He had been stabbed multiple times and was pronounced dead at the scene. http://m.wbaltv.com... Arizona Daily Star Kyle Austin Drattlo, 20, Christopher Edward Terry, 23, and Brianna Harding, 21, were charged with the July murders of Erskin, 87, and Mary Louise, 83, were found in their home late in the afternoon on July 23. Each had been stabbed repeatedly. In addition, Erskin had been beaten and stomped. http://azstarnet.com.... This is impact ful because it gives the elderly a chance to finally defend themselves, and as the topic says, they do good.
3. Stand Your Ground Laws do more good than harm because citizens can protect themselves from any dangers with them. Imagine if a criminal broke into your house with a gun. He aims the gun at you. However, with stand your ground laws, you able to ground your own gun and save your life. Without them, you would have died or gone to jail for murder. Let me tell you a story. Lena Baker was an economically challenged African-American woman living in the town of Cuthbert, Georgia in the 1940s, who took whatever work she could find in order to support her three children. She was hired by a white mill owner named Ernest Knight, who needed someone to care for him while he recovered from a broken hip. Baker continued to work for Knight for the next two years and scandalous rumors began to spread that the two of them were involved in a relationship. However, the relationship was an abusive one and Knight often held Baker against her will. On April 30, 1944, Knight locked Baker up inside the grist mill and threatened to rape her at gunpoint. After he tried to attack her with a metal pipe, Baker grabbed Knight's pistol and shot him through the head before escaping. With Stand Your Ground Laws, Baker would not have been punished, since she shot the man for a perfectly good reason. This is impactful because people who are threatened should not be punished for protecting themselves from danger and saving their own lives.
1~ I found this NRC statement shown on your source page for this argument: "The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements."
Be careful that your sources don't give people the means with which to bring down your argument.
2~ Elderly people are often somewhat unstable, in many senses of the the word. While having a weapon would help them become less of a target, degrading mental health could cause them to make mistakes, possibly at the detriment of others. In the end the risk just isn't worth it. They probably wouldn't have too much longer to live anyway (Sorry, but it's the truth).
3~ Stand your ground laws only apply (or not) when you are in a situation where escape is an option. Miss Baker's actions fall under self defence.
Just the other day an ominous looking arab man walked onto my yard. I just assumed he was examining the property and thinking about buying a similar house, and I was correct. But with stand your ground laws, I could have shot him. Maybe I would've gotten arrested, maybe not. It all gets very blurry. All that's technically required is usually just that I THINK I'm in danger. In the end, people get scared a lot more than they get in danger. It puts way too much pressure on society to tread softly, and just isn't really worth it.
It is a law that stands as an exception to the long held law that you should do all within your power to NOT hurt people. Assault is assault, and murder is murder. Any sentence starting with "I thought" should never have a place in court. Once you get out of the realm of observable evidence, and into trying to figure out peoples motives, you're playing mind games, and we don't really have the expertise yet to be able to really do that right.
1. They pointed out a contradiction in my argument, however I do not understand it since they did not explain it AT ALL or include a source so I can look at it. "Be careful that your sources don't give people the means with which to bring down your argument" is what they said, but they haven't showed how this brings down my argument.
2. They said that elderly people are unstable. I disagree. Because there is no evidence/source/anything included in this argument, therefore it should be rejected.
3. They said that Miss Baker's case is irrelevant. I disagree. Because stand your ground laws DO NOT apply when escape is an option, rather only when there is NO means of retreat. I kindly ask my opponent to at least have a little knowledge about the topic before he begins debating. Therefore, Miss Baker's case does apply in this context.
4. They said that an Arab man walked on to his yard, and explained how he could have shot them. However, I disagree, because Stand Your Ground laws do not provide this "easy excuse" of shooting him. My opponent must have been threatened for his life in order to shoot the Arab man. If the Arab had, say, taken a battering ram and knocked down his door, then Stand Your Ground laws would have applied. Therefore, this case is misconstrued and irrelevant.
5. My esteemed colleague said that you should do all within your power not to hurt people. I agree, however what does this have to do with Stand Your Ground Laws? Under a Stand Your Ground Law, you can only use force if you feel threatened; it cannot be used as an excuse to hurt people, and in a real court situation, "I thought" does not fly, and real evidence is needed. Therefore, this argument should be discounted.
1. Stand your ground laws do more good than harm because they reduce crime Stand your ground laws are proven to beneficial to crime rates. According to "More guns, Less crime", by John Lott these laws reduce murder rates by 9% and other violent crimes by 11%. http://en.wikipedia.org...... The impact of this is there is no harm associated with a law that lessens murder and other violent crimes rates.
2. Stand your ground laws do more good than harm because the elderly and disabled can protect themselves from people threatening them. Let"s face it, elderly people and disabled people do not have much of a chance to fight back without Stand Your Ground Laws. One may argue that self-defense laws provide these benefits, however with self-defense laws, all means of retreat must be exhausted before force is used. With a Stand Your Ground law, we can give elderly and disabled people the opportunity to fight back to offenders without having to retreat since they most like cannot retreat due to their old age and disability. According to http://www.victimsofcrime.org..., elderly people who were victims of crimes were at 2,400. That"s 2,400 people, plus the large amounts of disabled victims, who have been protected better with Stand Your Ground Laws. The impact of this argument is that the elderly and disabled have a harder time defending themselves in deadly situations, causing a life lost. With stand your ground laws, these people can protect themselves further in situations like this.
3.A) Stand Your Ground Laws do more good than harm because citizens can protect themselves from any dangers with them. Imagine if a criminal broke into your house with a gun. He aims the gun at you. However, with stand your ground laws, you able to use your own gun and save your life. Without them, you would have died. I would like to tell you a different story. Basil Parasiris was a 41-year-old businessman who lived with his wife and two children. In the early morning hours of March 2, 2007, the Parasiris family was awakened by a surprise visit from nine police officers. A warrant was issued to search Paris's home for drugs. In order to prevent Parasiris from being able to destroy potential evidence of drugs, this warrant allowed the cops to use "dynamic entry" and enter the home without knocking. They entered Parasiris"s bedroom with their guns drawn, but Parasiris grabbed his .357 Magnum and fired at them. Constable Daniel Tessier was shot twice and killed instantly while Parasiris"s wife and another officer were wounded in the ensuing gunfire. When Parasiris realized the intruders were police officers, he immediately dropped his weapon, showing that he wished no harm to law enforcement. Let"s all thank Stand Your Ground Laws for getting Parisis "off the hook" since the police officers basically posed as burglars. All he did was stand his ground, and he had every right to do so.
Thank you and I eagerly await to debate the third round.
Mantizah forfeited this round.
Pokemonzr forfeited this round.
Mantizah forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Ouch. Con's forfeits really hurt him. Pro also forfeited, but only after Con, and considering Pro got a "free round" of argumentation, it didn't seem to hurt HIS case much. Con got to present his case, but never defended it. As such, Pro's arguments against Con and defense of his own case stand. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.