The Instigator
AmericanSpirit
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Varsity_Debater-420
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The federal government ought to ban assault weapons from the public use.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 33312
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AmericanSpirit

Con

The terms in the round are as follows:
ought- used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence

Contention 1- Constitution:
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."- US Constitution.
To not infringe means to not touch, harm, change. So the US government should not touch our gun rights or harm them in any way.

Contention 2- Taking away guns will not stop violence.
People will always find ways to get guns, and making assault weapons illegal, will make them even more intriguing. If people want those guns so bad, they may go to extreme lengths to get them.

Contention 3- There will always be assault weapons out there.
Just like viruses on a computer. It is illegal to post or upload in any way viruses or mali-ware on the web and distribute them, but hey? They are always there. They get past the system's antivirus program(the law enforcement people) and get into your system(the public).
Varsity_Debater-420

Pro

"What if?"

I stand infront of you on the neg. side of this debate I raise 3 points in this debate
1:Direct knowlage
2:Past incounters
3:Whats best for america

1:Direct knowlage
-I raise the value of direct knowlage in this debate the def. of direct knowlage is:the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. wareness, as of a fact or circumstance.
We know of all the bad things that happend in the past with guns wether it be a school shooting or just a terrorist attack we cannot risk it!

2:Past incounters
-We all know about the whole sandy hook thing...those inocent kids that school with bullets in the walls, the windows...Do you really whant america to be a crime riden country (Its already bad enough)

3:Whats best for america
-Right now we have so much crime we NEED this just so our children can go to school, So we can go to our jobs and just overall to live a normal life. A normal country without school shootings...Without terrorist attscks. The nation we want and need!

REBUTTLE: You said for your first point that the constution gives us the right to bear arms, Ok seems ok But back when the constution was made they didn't have school shooting, they didnt have fully auto guns. They (The founders of the constution) Had NO IDEA what the future would be like.

-Your second contention stated "Taking away guns will not stop violence" But on that point you are wrong its like this no gun=less chance of a crime, Yes you do have your knife,BUT which one sounds more dangerous a knife OR a AR-15?
-
And for your last point you stated "There will always be assault weapons out there" This point kind of sounds like a neg. point you say that banning guns wont have any affect but as the resoloved states "Assault wepons will be banned" When something is banned it is harder it get! Yes you can still get it but it will be harder to get. All i ask is for america to stay safe and prosperus.
Debate Round No. 1
AmericanSpirit

Con

I have 1 point to address after my rebuttles.

1)Rebuttle to direct knowledge:
You ask why risk the ownership of assault weapons of there is a danger in letting people own them. Well, people drive cars you see, and people get in car crashes. Since 1980, 297 people have died in school shootings. In 2012 alone, more than 32,000 deaths have been recorded in automotive accidents. If people die in car crashes, why risk having people drive cars. How about we make it illegal to drive cars? That would definitely decrease the car accident death rates now wouldn't it? That would most likely NOT happen though.

2) Rebuttle to Past encounters:
You said it's already bad enough, and that innocent people and kids die in school shootings, and that the US is crime ridden? Back to the cars thing. Think of all the innocent people, children, babies that die in car crashes caused by drunk drivers. So why not ban alcohol as a result?

3) Rebuttle to What's best for America:
America needs guns. It's what we're known for. That's one of the main reason Japan didn't want to invade our country in WW2, their spies said that everyone here had guns. What if it's like red dawn and we have to defend ourselves? Also, why do school shootings happen? Almost all the time it is because of bullying. So why not put more money into teaching kids and teens that bullying is bad and has real consequences? That my friend is the source, the fuel. Take out the fuel, and the fire will never start. Take our bullying, and the school shootings would never happen. Eliminate the cause, prevent the effect.

Defense of my arguments:

- In your first rebuttle, you stated that when the constitution was written, that they didn't have school shootings and that the founding fathers had no idea of what the world would be like. The constitution, no matter how old, still stands today. Take a look at the Bible. The olden day prophets had no idea of how bat it would become in our day, but they laid down the laws and we are expected to follow them, no matter how outdated the 10 commandments or the principles of the gospel may seem.

-In your 2nd rebuttle, you stated that taking away assault weapons will stop violence(but what you said that if we take away weapons, the violence will stop), but we're only referring to assault weapons here. If you take away assault weapons, the school shootings will not stop, because there are still guns out there, even if they are not assault weaponry, or are you hinting that we should ban guns completely? Without assault weapons, they will just acquire handguns. And I think that a mad man with a knife sounds worse than a responsible man that likes guns with an AR-15.

-You said that you want america to stay safe and prosperous. Well, if you want it to stay safe, then put more money into the police force and the development of new military technologies. And if you want the US to be prosperous, put more money into projects that will benefit the economy(which is weaker than a soggy pancake that is dipped in acid).

NEW Arguments:

1) It's just not right.
It is a very low percentage of people that own assault weapons that use them for harm. Why punish the millions of people that own and are responsible for their assault weapons for the few crazy psyco and rage driven murderers? No one likes it when the teacher punishes the whole class of 35 students with double homework because 2 or 3 people were talking.
If this is the case, then why not ban driving cars if to many people drunk drive? This is like holding a wolf by the ears. We can keep it mainly under control by holding it there(except for the occasional bite), this is keeping assault weapons legal, but if we let go, the consequence is much worse when it eats our face(banning assault weapons), and you have possible revolutions on your hands.

ALL I want, is to uphold the constitution's 2ed amendment, and if defending it causes me to raise arms, then I will do so with honor.
Varsity_Debater-420

Pro

Varsity_Debater-420 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AmericanSpirit

Con

AmericanSpirit forfeited this round.
Varsity_Debater-420

Pro

Varsity_Debater-420 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AmericanSpirit

Con

AmericanSpirit forfeited this round.
Varsity_Debater-420

Pro

Varsity_Debater-420 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.