The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The M1 Garand was superior to any other rifle in service during WWII.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,354 times Debate No: 24503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




General George S. Patton, Jr. was quoted as saying "In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."[1] Whether or not the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, hereafter referred to as the "M1 Garand" or "Garand", was the best battle implement ever devised is a bit of a stretch. However, the M1 Garand can easily be considered the best rifle to have been in service during World War II.

Some ground-rules:
- For rebuttal, my opponent may compare the M1 Garand to one or multiple rifles in service during World War 2. The rifle(s) may be from any country and in any caliber.
- "Superior" in this case should be defined by two characteristics:
1. Most effective as a battle implement.
2. Able to be used in the widest variety of combat situations.
- Neither myself nor my opponent may vote for ourselves in this debate.

To initially cover off on the basic specifications of the rifle [2]:
Weight: appx. 9.5-10.5 lb
Length: 43 in
Muzzle Velocity: 2,750-2,800 fps
Maximum Effective Range: 500 yd
Max. Effective Rate of Fire: 16-24 aimed rounds per minute
Cartridges per Clip: 8
Type of Round: .30 caliber
Sights: Aperture Sight (M1), Scope/Telescope(M1C, M1D)

The benefit of the M1 Garand over its predecessor, the bolt-action Model 1903 Springfield, is that the Garand is a semi-automatic rifle. This semi-automatic operation gave the American infantry a significant advantage in firepower and shot-for-shot recovery time over enemy infantry (German, Italian and Japanese) who were typically still using bolt-action rifles. [3]

The rifle's 30.06 round provided the operator with a significant advantage in firepower. In closer combat, the penetration of the powerful round often allowed a soldier to kill up to three enemy combatants with one shot. [4]

Not only useful for lining up a shot, the Garand's front sight can also be used as a very accurate range finder, particularly when firing at a man-sized target. Additionally, if the operator knows their "come-ups", the rifle can be quickly adjusted for firing accurately at anywhere from 25-500 yd.[5]

I look forward to my opponent's initial rebuttal.


[1] Duff, Scott, The M1 Garand, World War II, p. 107. Facsimile of a letter from LTG G.S. Patton, Jr; Cdr, 3rd Army; to MG Levin Campbell, Jr.; Chief of Ordnance, War Department. Written 26 Jan 1945.
[2] "U.S. Department of the Army Technical Manual No. 9-1005-222-12"
[3] Rottman, Gordon L. (2006). U.S. Marine Rifleman 1939-45: Pacific Theater. Osprey Publishing. pp. 27–28. ISBN 1-84176-972-X.
[4] George, John (Lt. Col.). (1948). Shots Fired In Anger. The Samworth Press. ISBN 0-935998-42-X.


Firstly I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to challenge him in this debate.

The issue at hand is whether the Cal. .30, M1 rifle, or "Garand" was the best rifle available to those in combat during World War 2. As the Pro has stated, this selection is not limited in country or caliber. In this claim I will work to object, and provide alternative, that the Sturmgewehr 44, referred hereafter as the "StG 44" was in fact the superior rifle.

The basic specifications of the rifle in question:
Weight: 10.2 pounds empty, 11.5 pound with loaded magazine
Length: 37 inches
Muzzle velocity: 2,247 ft/s
Maximum effective range: 320 yards automatic, 650 yards semiautomatic
Rate of fire: 550-600 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 30 round detachable box magazine
Cartridge: 7.92 x 33mm Kurz

The StG 44 heralded the coming of modern infantry warfare by providing its users with a light weapon capable of a large volume of accurate fire at reasonable engagement distances. The intermediate cartridge allowed for a magazine capacity normally exclusive to pistol caliber submachine guns, but was still accurate at battlefield engagement distances. Fitted with a selective fire control, a single soldier could easily switch between suppressing fire and accurate semiautomatic fire, reducing the weapon specialization in a group by allowing each soldier to support one another equally.

By providing soldiers with a shorter weapon, their effectiveness at congested indoor fighting is unhampered compared to full rifles available to others, without any loss of effectiveness at longer ranges. The light weight of the Kurz round enabled soldiers to carry more ammunition, remaining combat ready for longer into engagements. The use of detachable box magazines allowed for quicker reloads than the stripper or en bloc alternatives that other rifles offered.

All of these features are now standard feature on modern military rifles, such as the American M-16 pattern rifles, Russian AK-47 and 74 pattern rifles, German G36 and Swiss SG 550 rifles, as well as many many other. It has been said the the StG 44 was the first "modern" assault rifle. With all of the modern features implemented into a single rifle so early in history, it is clear that the StG 44 is the superior rifle.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1


Not to be mired too much in formalities, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and providing an opposing point that not only took me by surprise, as I was mostly ignorant of the StG 44 prior to this debate, but also will prove to be quite a challenge.

For this round, I would like to focus on four points as rebuttal to my opponent's presentation of the StG 44: accuracy, power, ruggedness and timelessness.

We have a saying when it comes to rifle marksmanship instruction… "You can't ever miss fast enough." I believe that my opponent would be wise to keep this adage in mind when comparing the M1 Garand to the StG 44.

The standard issue M1 Garand featured an aperture-style rear sight [1], while the StG 44 featured an open, or notch, rear sight [2]. This gives the M1 Garand the advantage for several reasons: Open sights are imprecise, slow to align and are the most difficult type of sight for the human eye to use. [3,4,5]

The M1 Garand also provides a sight radius that is almost double that of the StG 44. While this doesn't inherently make the M1 Garand more accurate, it does provide the shooter with the ability to extract more accuracy from the rifle. Minor inaccuracies in sight alignment are exaggerated at your target. A longer sight radius minimizes the effect of those alignment inaccuracies. The difference in the sight radius of each rifle could very easily mean the difference of hit or a miss at longer ranges. [6]

The precision and ease of adjustment on the M1 Garand battle sights allows a trained rifleman to quickly make adjustments to zero their rifle for shots at different distances. As stated in my opening argument, a shooter that knows his "come-ups" can, in just moments, adjust their rifle sights to shoot accurately at any distance between 25 and 500 yards without having to make adjustments using "Kentucky Windage". [7]

In the event that the shooter did not have the time to estimate range and make a sight adjustment, they could easily bottom out their sights to what is known as "Battlesight Zero". This allows a rifleman to simply aim center-mass and make a hit on a man-sized target anywhere from appx. 35 yards out to 300 yards. [8]

As any Dungeons & Dragons player knows, your first step may be hitting your target, but your second step is doing the damage. All the accuracy in the world won't do a shooter any good unless he has the ability to destroy what he hits. Fortunately, not only does the M1 Garand provide the ability to place a round right where you want it, that 30-06 round provides a punch that is unmatched by the StG 44's 7.92x33.

A simple comparison of numbers gives us clear evidence of the superior stopping power of the M1 Garand's 30-06 round:
A standard 173gr 30-06 round would have a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,700 ft/s and a muzzle energy of approximately 2,900 ft-lbf.[9] A standard 125gr 7.92x33 round would have a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,250 ft/s with a muzzle energy of only approximately 1,408 ft-lbf.[10] To explain further, muzzle velocity is the speed at which the bullet leaves the muzzle of the rifle.[11] Muzzle energy is the kinetic energy of the bullet as it leaves the muzzle of the rifle. Muzzle energy is an indication of the destructive potential of any given round.[12] Not only is the speed of the 30-06 round greater, but because of its greater mass, the destructive potential is increased to twice that of the 7.92x33.

More anecdotal information also gives us an indication as to the power of the 30-06 round. It has been known to penetrate through barriers such as trees and still strike an enemy with deadly force.[13] In fact, as I stated in my opening argument, the penetration power of the round, when used in closer combat, would allow an infantryman to kill up to three enemy combatants with one shot.[14]

I don't imagine that anyone would argue that the rigors of battle place great stress on both the infantryman as well as his equipment. It is important, then, that the infantryman's equipment be manufactured to stand up under these stresses.

The StG 44 receiver was built from stamped steel[2] while the M1 Garand was made from forged steel[15]. A forged steel part has the advantage of being stronger than an equivalent stamped part.[16] This provided the M1 Garand with a distinct advantage in durability when the time came for bayonets instead of bullets. Additionally, because the stamped steel dents more easily, the StG 44 is more subject to jamming [17]

The British officers who came across the StG 44 during and after the War were unimpressed by the rifle's construction, saying about the StG 44 "… those I saw were poorly made throughout, and bore little resemblance to the excellent craftsmanlike jobs we had come to expect from Jerry at the beginning of the War." [18]

My opponent states "With all the modern features implemented into a single rifle so early in history, it is clear that the StG 44 is the superior rifle." While selectable fire and a high-capacity magazine are both impressive features, the M1 Garand can also be considered a rifle ahead of it's time.

Aperture sights similar to the Garand battle sights, are still used on rifles, such as the M16, today. [19] Additionally, the most commonly used rifle in the world, the AK-47, which is rumored to have been partially inspired by the SkG 44, actually draws equally from the M1 Garand [20], borrowing features such as it's double-locking lugs, unlocking raceway and trigger mechanism.[21] The M1 Garand has truly withstood the test of time and numbers of these battle rifles are still used in competition today.

In conclusion, due to its increased ability to shoot accurately, the incredible stopping power of its 30-06 round, its rugged construction and its timeless value, the M1 Garand proves itself to be the superior rifle.


[1] "U.S. Department of the Army Technical Manual No. 9-1005-222-12"
[14] George, John (Lt. Col.). (1948). Shots Fired In Anger. The Samworth Press. ISBN 0-935998-42-X
[17] Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945
[18] With British Snipers to the Reich by Captain C. Shore


In this round I will move to illustrate how the points my opponent has made are not substantial in the scope of this debate. While the points of accuracy, power, ruggedness and timeless my opponents has made are undeniable valid, they do not further the argument as it pertains in this debate. In each I will explain how the StG 44 remains the best rifle of World War 2.

Accuracy is the product of 3 forces. The user, the rifle and the round. The user being an obvious source of error, can indeed be aided by more refined sighting systems. A rifleman using a 10x magnification scope has an overpowering advantage over someone using the same rifle but limited t iron sight. A rifle with a long, properly seated barrel contributes to the accuracy of a shot. The longer the barrel the more time the gases have to impart their energy upon the bullet, providing higher muzzle velocity and higher speed. The Garand has a barrel length of 24 inches, while the StG 44 only has a barrel length of 16.5 inches, a significant difference. Lastly, the weight and shape of a bullet will determine it's external ballistic profile. A heavy bullet will be less motivated by wind, and spitzer or boat tail features can reduce the aerodynamic drag of the round. For comparison, the M1 Garand fires a 174-grain (11.3 g) round while the StG 44 fires a 125-grain (8.1 g) round. Yet despite these figures falling into the Garand's favor, it does not yield the title of superior rifle.
While the StG 44 fired a lighter bullet out of a shorter barrel, it was still accurate enough to hit a man sized target out to 300 yards. With most battles falling between the 200 and 300 yard marks, a rifle accurate out to 800 yards offers no significant advantage to the realities it must face. If a rifle were measured based on it's long range accuracy alone,armies would be fielded armed only with .50 BMG sniper rifles, well known for their abilities to hit targets a mile away. While the M1 Garand was unarguable better at long range, it was not expected to be a support weapon. It was designed to be a front lines battle rifle, a theater that stripped it of any significant value. In terms of actual combat, the M1 Garand and StG 44 were just as accurate as one another.

Again, publicly available data will indicate that the M1 Garand, with a heavier bullet and much larger charge producing a powerful muzzle velocity will undoubtedly impart more energy onto its unlucky target. However again, this argument avoids a key facet of reality. Once a target is killed, killing it more offers no advantage in the battlefield. As my opponent has said multiple times, the powerful .30-06 round has the power to pas through it's target and retain enough energy to do it again twice over. While a chilling testament to it's effectiveness at column formations, it also illustrates how unnecessary it is. As with all combat ammunition issued to today's military, the 7.92�33mm Kurz round is described as an intermediate cartridge, in that it falls between the two extremes of full sized rifle ammunition, like the .30-06, and handgun ammunition, like the 9x19 parabellum round used by popular handguns and submachine guns today. These rounds offered manslaying power out to the ranges they were expected to perform, 200-300 yards, and no more. This practical limitation allowed for ammunition to be no lager than necessary, giving more capacity in weapons and more spare magazines in battle.

The rigors of combat have shifted dramatically since the time of the First World War. Rifles were expected to perform as spears to dismount infantry, and long fought battles offered realistic opportunities to have both sides depleted of ammunition. Weapons of this era are unquestionably better suited to be used as clubs and spears, with quite literally swords mounted on the front. However, the technological leaps of the Second World War saw that these forms of combat diminish in the importance. Modern weapons can't hold a candle to the melee potential of American Civil War rifles, yet no one will argue that a Kentucky Rifle can defeat a M16A4 in combat. Among other weapons fabricated from stamped steel construction is the AK-47, quite arguable the most rugged rifle every made, despite any denting risks.

While no doubt the M1 Garand is a wartime classic, fetching lofty prices by collectors and forever ingrained in the minds of Americans, a great deal of this can be attributed to the Allied victory of World War 2. After the war the German military was dissolved and all progress the could have been was split between the emerging superpowers to be employed in their coming Cold War. The M1 Garand went on to be the M14, still used today as a Designated Marksman Rifle in Afghanistan by US forces. However, seized stocks of StG 44 rifles after the war were distributed to many north African and Middle East nations at the time, and examples have been found in the hands of the Vietcong during the Vietnam War, and even as recently as insurgent forces in Iraq. Despite being rare collector's items, these weapons remain functional combat rifles in the hands of militia groups around the world.

To conclude, the points my opponent has made are no doubt valid, they do not impact the core of this argument, which is to be the most effective battle implement.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


In this final round, I will propose that my opponent's attempts to unseat my arguments are flimsy at best and that he has made no significant, or verifiable arguments as to why the StG 44 should dethrone the M1 Garand as the superior WWII-era battle rifle.

So where are we as we move into this final round of debate? It seems to me that the following is the case:
- My opponent has conceded that while the M1 Garand is more accurate, the StG 44 is "accurate enough".
- My opponent has conceded that while the M1 Garand fires a more damaging round, the StG 44 is "powerful enough".
- My opponent has conceded that while the M1 Garand is the more durable rifle, the StG 44 is "rugged enough".

However, I would remind my opponent that we are not in a discussion about whether the StG was a "good enough" rifle... Our debate revolves around superiority defined as "most effective as a battle implement" and "able to be used in the widest variety of combat situations". Good enough just won't cut it.

To dig more deeply into my opponent's rebuttals...

"While the StG 44 fired a lighter bullet out of a shorter barrel, it was still accurate enough to hit a man sized target out to 300 yards. With most battles falling between the 200 and 300 yard marks, a rifle accurate out to 800 yards offers no significant advantage to the realities it must face."

While, in my personal experience, shooters do enjoy occasionally ringing that 1000 yard bell at the range, no claim was ever made that the M1 Garand was accurate out past 500 yards. However, if my opponent is suggesting that 800 yards is the upper limit of the M1 Garand's accuracy, I will not disagree. I will concede to my opponents claim that MOST battles fall between 200 and 300 yards. However, to hold the title of "superior battle rifle", a rifle must be usable in the widest variety of combat situations... not just most. I have stated in my previous arguments that the M1 Garand's aperture sighting system provides quicker, easier and more accurate target acquisition, at anywhere from 25 to 500 yards, than the StG 44's open sights.

Yes, mechanically the M1 Garand and StG 44 may have been similar in accuracy at 200 to 300 yards. However, the M1 Garand's sighting system minimizes error on the part of the shooter and allows for greater accuracy in the widest variety of battle situations.

"[7.92x33mm Kurz] rounds offered manslaying power out to the ranges they were expected to perform, 200-300 yards, and no more."

I'm not sure there is a need to refute this claim. My opponent is clearly confirming that the StG 44 was simply "good enough", but not superior. However, I will continue.

My opponent attempts to marginalize the value of the power and size of the 30-06 round with his argument. However, he ignores that fact that not every hit is equal. Yes, the StG 44 could kill a man during battle. However, especially due to it's inferior sights, it is very likely that a hit from the StG 44 will not always be in a critical area. With the greater size and punch of of the 30-06 round, it will do more damage and be more likely to kill an enemy combatant rather than simply wound.

Additionally, my opponent ignores the reality that, in battle, enemy combatants will often take cover behind solid objects. The 30-06 round has the ability to punch through not only bodies, but also trees, walls and numerous other types of cover that would be found on a battlefield [1,2]. The 30-06 fired from an M1 Garand was not a round that you could easily hide from.

"Weapons [prior to WWII] are unquestionably better suited to be used as clubs and spears, with quite literally swords mounted on the front. However, the technological leaps of the Second World War saw that these forms of combat diminish in the importance."

While not as common as in the days of the Civil War, there are still numerous well-known accounts of situations where a soldier would need to make use of his bayonet. The Japanese were known for their "banzai charges" [3]. In December 1941, the 100th Infantry Battalion made a successful bayonet charge against German forces in Sicily [4]. In November of 1942, the 2nd Battalion of the New Hampshire Regiment was involved in three days of fierce close combat featuring several bayonet charges and counter-charges [5].

Additionally, when considering the need for a rifle that is rugged enough to withstand the rigors of close-combat, let us take another look at the StG 44. The rate of fire from the StG 44 was conservatively 550 rounds per minute [6]. Ammunition was carried in two pouches, each containing three magazines of thirty rounds each with, perhaps, one additional magazine loaded into the rifle. This gives us a total of 210 rounds [7].

To make a conservative estimate, let's calculate the rate of fire, along with a two second pause between each three-round burst, along with an estimated five seconds for each magazine change. That gives us complete depletion of a soldier's ammo in approximately four minutes using automatic fire. Not only did the StG 44 require specialized ammunition which was in short supply during the war [8], but it also ate through that ammunition at an amazing rate. This paints a bleak picture for battles that would often last hours, if not days. For a weapon that could find itself empty so quickly while an enemy is advancing, one would expect it to be prepared for use in close combat.

In the Second World War, close combat was far from unheard of and is still a combat situation that needs to be considered when selecting the superior rifle. With the removal of the bayonet lug from the early prototypes[6] and its likelihood to bend and jam after any application of blunt force, this rifle is clearly not built to withstand these rigors.

If we look back through this debate, what are we left with regarding my opponent's original arguments? What evidence has he provided to prove that the StG 44 is a superior rifle? I see many features that make the StG 44 a "good" rifle, but not enough to declare it the "superior" rifle.

Once again, because of its increased ability to be be shot accurately, its devastating 30-06 round, its ability to withstand the rigors of close combat and its general ability to be adapted to any combat situation, I trust you will agree that the M1 Garand still stands as the superior rifle in service during World War II.






In this final round, I will move to elaborate on the points made previous, expanding to make clear how my opponent has argued quite successfully that the M1 Garand filled a niche specialty role as a rifle, but when weighted to the reality of combat, fell short of being a superior rife to the StG 44. To the points made by my opponent:
The Garand was accurate.
The Garand was powerful.
The Garand was rugged.
I agree that these points are not in dispute.
However, what my opponents has avoided bringing to light are the painful downsides of these points that inevitable will strip it of the title of superior rifle.

In order to be as accurate as it is, the Garand needs to be a lengthy 43.5 inches. This long encumbrance was only exceeded by dedicated sniper rifles, and even then, the M1903 Springfield used in World War Two was only 0.4 inches longer. Perhaps in the antiquated rank and file fighting where the enemy was expected to stay their distance would this not be an issue, but the modern stage that was forming in the 1940s saw the need for battlefield flexibility, good mobility and fast target acquisition. The Garand was designed for an era that was fast closing, of long battles along fixed lines.
The StG 44 was a smaller, more mobile platform, better suited to ranges actually encountered, from close in trenches and house clearing to wide open fields of fire. To say that a shotgun would perform better in the trenches is indisputable. Likewise, a sniper rifle no doubt will outperform at long range. Yet each is severely debilitated when brought out of it's individual zone of comfort. The StG 44, as all with assault rifles, is the every-man's rifle, well suited to perform across the entire battlefield envelope equally. The Garand simply cannot offer the same performance when brought below it's long range comfort zone.

To ensure lethality at long range, the Garand was chambered in the powerful .30-06 round. This round developed a impressive muzzle velocity of over 2,700 feet per second despite being a hefty 173 grains. This ensured deadly energy even after a long terminal phase. However, the is an important issue to be addressed with these impressive numbers. Yes, the M1 Ball could generate almost 3,000ft/lbs of force on the target. However that number relies on the fact that the bullet comes to rest inside the target, transferring the entirety of it's momentum into organs and bones. If the round were to over penetrate, and continue onwards, only a fraction of that energy would have transferred to the target. An optimized round is designed to come to complete rest within it's target,balancing the need more a minimum penetration without passing through.
The Kurz round, a revolutionary experimental round for it's time, exemplified the practice of a balance projection of force to the target. 125 grains at 2,250 ft/s was near to ideal for the broad range of engagement it was expected to perform within. The round may have only produced 1,400 foot pounds of force, but it was ensured that every bit of it was delivered to the target, with none wasted. This is a staple of modern assault rifles, each posting similar statistics for the engagement range most encountered on the battlefield. While heavier, more powerful rounds are used, such as the 7.62 NATO round, the successor to the .30-06 round, these are only employed when long range performance is needed, never at commonly found ranges. Again, with it's use of a powerful battle round, the Garand has shown itself to be well suited to a specialty rear line role, not a main combat rifle.

The ruggedness of the Garand was achieved through both the use of an expensive and time consuming forged steel and the dated practice of full wood furniture. With the American war machine at full tilt, it could afford the slower production schedule of a forged and milled receiver. The wood furniture, while strong, was heavy and limited the environment to which it could be deployed. In the hot wet Pacific campaign, warping of the hand guard from humidity significantly affected accuracy. The length, bulk and generous use of wood made for a rugged melee implement indeed, but at the cost of a lean rifle.
The StG 44 is indeed produced from a stamped steel construction, producing an equally heavy rifle. It was produced very late in Germany's war effort, when rifles were needed regardless of quality. This did not stop the StG 44 from being a top performer in the battlefield. Deployed on the eastern front, it provided a much larger volume of fire compared to any infantry alternative. The criticisms levied against it at the end of the war better reflect the bias that Allied forced had rather than any testament to the weapon's performance.

Again to mention that the landscape of World War Two was one that drove innovation at a rate not seen since perhaps the invention of the transistor to replace the vacuum tube. It can be seen at a transition from old to new in almost every facet of war fighting. Personnel armor, beyond obsolete and unissued during the First World War, was reintroduced in the form of flak jackets and steel helmets. Early jet fighters offered glimpse of modern air forces today. Guided rockets, aircraft carriers, main battle tanks. In almost every facet, what entered the war was rendered obsolete by what left it.
The StG 44 is no exception. It holds the distinction of being a first in it's class, one that revolutionized small arms design and battlefield engagements all the way to modern times. Every single assault rifle fielded today traces its core lineage back to the StG 44. By providing a high volume of fire effective at 90% of encountered engagement ranges, the StG 44 gave a single infantryman the firepower of a machine gun squad will enabling him to be as mobile as the infantryman of the day. It is for these reasons that the StG 44 should claim the title as the superior rifle of World War Two.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by samuelayres 4 years ago
Please note as you are voting that I DID leave the option open to use ANY rifle in service during World War II... including assault rifles. Please do not vote down my opponent for this reason.
Posted by samuelayres 4 years ago
Such an eloquent comment... grow up junior.
Posted by Voice_O_Reason 4 years ago
This is stupid
Posted by samuelayres 4 years ago
Let's do it! About two days left!
Posted by aero36 4 years ago
Hm... I may take you up on this by taking the side of the M1 Carbine
Posted by samuelayres 4 years ago
I'm new to this whole thing... I suppose I also should've defined what constitutes "superior". Hmm... Guess I still have time to adjust a bit.
Posted by samuelayres 4 years ago
I tried to leave it as wide open as possible... The MP44 absolutely was a rifle in service during World War II. It may be a different category of arm, but it's still valid to counter with under my initial statement.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
The MP44 was an assault rifle, which is a different category of arm.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Maybe someone could argue for the MP44?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
The general consensus flows pro, although someone may be able to argue the comparative strengths of another weapon.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 4 years ago
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 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 presented the best argument because the M1 Garand has a .30 cal round that is far more superior than the 7.9mm round. I would've loved to see Con argue for an actual rifle and not an assault rifle, I feel he didn't stick with the resolution as they are two different types of weapons.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro, he crushed Con who didn't use any. Pro had 21 accurate sources one round. What a gun enthusiast.