The Instigator
Aned
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
The_Chaos_Heart
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

The Appearance of Rifles is their Most Dangerous Aspect.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 12 votes the winner is...
The_Chaos_Heart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 28758
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

Aned

Pro

The position I will be defending is that not only technical and mechanical features of rifles merit consideration for their classification, but also their appearances.

Hunting rifles are excluded from the debate.

Debating this topic will help people decide what guns should fall under the assault rifle category. Good luck!
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

I accept. Begin your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Aned

Pro

Through this argument, I would like to indicate how an aggressive design in rifles may affect the psychological mentality and behavior in criminals.

Let's look at the psychological effects that the rifle appearance may trigger on shooters:

1- Confidence: it will empower and encourage the assailant to confront authorities and engage the public.

2- Determination: It will play a crucial role in the attacker's decision to go ahead with his infamous plan since he may feel familiar with this war-like style of weapon from operating them in video games.

3- Assurance: It provides the shooter with a sense of superiority however false it could be, increasing his expectations.

The rifle design will also force police officers to employ an unnecessary higher level of force that may result in greater collateral damage (innocent bystanders being injured or killed by friendly fire).

Furthermore, the appearance of the rifle is the first impression victims get, and they will react based on this fact and how it affects them.

Another point is that guns with long barrels can be used as sniper rifles because of their accuracy.

Recent events have revealed that most active shooters are not weapon experts; therefore, they feel confident with guns that look aggressive no matter how deceiving this appearance may result. Moreover, this false image does provide a sense of empowerment, inciting criminals and shameless subjects to proceed with their perverse intentions.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

As the resolution states, this debate is about how the appearance of rifles is their most dangerous aspect.


Has the appearance of a rifle ever killed someone?

No.

Has the ammunition of a rifle being shot out of it ever killed someone?

Yes.

Has the rifle used as a blunt object ever killed someone?

Yes.


Clearly then, the mere appearance of rifles is not their most dangerous aspect. The technical uses of a rifle, their functions, are their most dangerous aspect.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
After listening to some pro-assault rifles advocates, I have concluded that the reason they want to maintain any kind of weapon available in the market is to justify their belief that weapons in people's hands is a necessity so that they can overthrow the government if they deem it necessary. It is just an utopia, but it is what feed their ego and fanaticism. If assault rifles were to disappear, their thesis (belief) would make no sense any more even though it does not make any sense since long to rational citizens.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
By 'early' I mean three or four years ago.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
It doesn't matter how long the voting period is. There used to be an option for them never to end. Some early ones I can still vote on.
Posted by R0b1Billion 4 years ago
R0b1Billion
Nothing but bare assertions from pro.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Conduct goes to Con because a 180-day voting period seeems excessive, and as though it was done as a "trap".

Spelling and grammar were about equal. Neither side used sources.

Con easily rebutted the proposition without rebutting the points, however, the points Pro made were assertions based on what I can only assume are "gut feelings", since there are no sources to back them up as things which actually occur, which would have been necessary for the points to have any merit (after all, I could argue that anything MIGHT be scary, or MIGHT cause something to happen, but unless I establish that it DOES, I don't think anyone would take me seriously). Pro also attempted to use a technical application to buttress his appearance point (long barrels used as sniper rifles), which contradicts his position.

I think a problem here was that the proposition as stated in the heading was not the proposition that Pro stated he'd be defending in Round 1; there's a meaningful difference between the proposals "The Appearance of Rifles is their Most Dangerous Aspect." and "not only technical and mechanical features of rifles merit consideration for their classification, but also their appearances". (I also think it was unfair of Pro to exclude a type of gun in Round One without justification, setting it up as a "rule", which had the potential to hobble the debate). Had there been more rounds, maybe this would have been worked out.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
What the hell? 180 days for the damn vote to be finished? Are you crazy? That's almost half a year!
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 failed to make his case, and even completely disregarded the fact that the "appearance" of an assault rifle actually changes the function of the assault rifle. CON made the case that the most dangerous aspect of an assault weapon are the BULLETS. It was PRO's job to establish that the mere appearance of the specific features of an assault rifle make it more dangerous than the actual functions of those specific features.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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's arguments took many words to construct, but only a few words to deconstruct. The aesthetics can throw people on a street into a panic, but it cannot kill them like bullets or a rifle butt do.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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: Poorly structured challenge on Pros part. I wondered how it would pan out. Pro makes a good point that perception is a factor. However, as Con makes clear.... The looks of a gun is not what makes it a deadly weapon.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: 1 round debates = fail
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a genuine case that the appearance of rifles were more dangerous in general to society. Con used semantics (according to what he and the audience were expecting) when it was perfectly clear what his case was.
Vote Placed by Canadian-In-Florida 4 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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: For this, conduct was equal, as was sources as neither used any. I counted 7 grammatical or punctuation mistakes in Pro's argument, while I did not notice any in Con's, though Con's was much shorter, it still counts. As for the argument, the BoP was on Pro for this one, as logic reasons that the bullet would be the most dangerous by default. Pro provided no evidence, no basis for his claims, and showed a lack of knowledge of firearms by claiming that long barrels automatically mean accuracy and ability to be used as a sniper rifle. All the claims are speculative and therefore hold no scientific or evidential proof. Con countered short and simple, but it was effective as Pro did not prove that the appearance poses more danger than the bullets or the blunt force of a gun stock itself.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Perhaps I'll be the only one voting Pro, but I didn't find Con's case (composed mostly of one-word "rebuttals") to convincing, especially with Pro's reasoning concerning the psychology of their appearance.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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: cons simple and straightforward reasoning demolished the pro's arguments and easily won him the debate
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con offers a much better argument, albeit much more simple. It's the ammunition, not the gun itself that kills people.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 4 years ago
Logical-Master
AnedThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I wholeheartedly agree with PRO's stance that the appearance is more dangerous on the grounds that the appearance of a gun is sufficient to take hostages or control an unruly mob. The guns actual use is dangerous as well, but is less often brandished in society. However, PRO didn't bother making these arguments. Instead, he made a couple of nonsensical remarks. Since I feel conduct/s&g/reliable sources played no role in this debate, I allocate all 7 of my points into convincing arguments. CON.