The Instigator
BirdieMachine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OldManReid
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
OldManReid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 93521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

BirdieMachine

Con

I'm going to argue that Guns are not necessary to use and the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.

You can use a knife or sword to defend yourself if your Home is attacked or if the U.S. is attacked by force from another Country. The use of a Knife or Sword can be more effective in close combat and close quarters to defend your Home, Property and Sovereignty. You can also use Pepper Spray to shoot at the perpetrators.
OldManReid

Pro

Guns are necessary to defend ourselves from home intruders and an oppressive government. As you have stated the former, I will elaborate in that one first. If someone breaks into my house, I would want to defend myself the best way possible, and that way would be a gun. You stated that a knife or a sword could be just as effective, but what if they have a gun? Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

The 2nd Amendment was made so we could revolt if the government were to become oppressive. And based off of the presidential election, perhaps the government will become oppressive. If the government becomes oppressive, we can forcefully take it back. The Founding Fathers put this in because we revolted against British oppression, and we may need to do that again.
Debate Round No. 1
BirdieMachine

Con

I'm going to trust the Politicians and Government and give them my faith that they will do right versus wrong. If I give up my freedoms they will do good. We are the USA, we can elect good people.

Archery could also be used against possible force so I will include that as an option as well. I did also see that flamethrowers are legal too. Not sure how effective they would be but it is an option against multiple invaders. So you have a knife, sword, flamethrower or archery to protect yourself and family.
OldManReid

Pro

I do not believe that it is wise to trust politicians. I do not trust Trump and I especially do not trust Hillary. I prefer Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death." Based on how more than 80% (or maybe 90%, depending on the poll) wants to vote for Trump or Hillary so that the candidate they distrust less to faithfully execute the office of the presidency alarms me. You say that we can elect good people, but we aren't. We are going to either elect, to quote Ross Cohen, "a cross between a sketchy used car salesman and a kooky grandpa who randomly blurts racist statements" or a known liar, cheat and crook. Neither is a good person.

Yes, archery could be used as an alternate force, but guns are so superior. It takes time to reload a bow and arrow, when by the time you are ready with the second arrow, you could have already fired a whole round of bullets. First, why would anyone use flamethrowers. It would probably burn down your whole house, while it may take out the intruder, it also might kill you and your family and it will certainly start a fire in your house. Is it worth burning your house down to take out an intruder?
Debate Round No. 2
BirdieMachine

Con

We do have Congress in place to try and limit the power of the President and their appointments so that should help stop oppressive actions they take against the people.

So without Guns we do have other defensive options from Archery, Knives, Swords or Flamethrowers and possibly other options for preventing intruders, domestic or foreign oppressive forces. I think we have lots of options to not use guns.
OldManReid

Pro

Yes, I am aware that there are checks and balances, but Congress has not been standing up to President Obama, and if they are not standing up to him, why would they stand up to Hillary (who would be 4 more years of Obama) or to Trump (when there is a Republican majority)?

I have already stated why guns are superior to these options, but I feel like it would not be unwise to reiterate my reasons. Guns are quicker to use than bows and arrows. Against guns, knives and swords just don't work. While effective against the target, flamethrowers also risk the safety of the user, the user's family and the user's home. Guns are just overall superior.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Birdie did a wonderful job

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
if you fear 10 men coming in to your house, you might as well fear 1 man coming into your house with a gun
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
effective?
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
Also, you can easily have rock-shooters and air guns,they are not outlawed in any country and are only slightly less lethal than guns
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
BirdieMachineOldManReidTied
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: Although I agree with Con on this issue, Pro clearly won this debate. The alternate weapons argument from Con was easily refuted by Pro and Con never adequately responded to Pro's contentions. I wish Con brought up how negligible the chances of having to defend your home with a gun are; but that's not up to me to decide.
Vote Placed by Masonh928 1 year ago
Masonh928
BirdieMachineOldManReidTied
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: BirdieMachine (Con) was not able to provide a solid argument neither a rebuttal against Pro; moreover, he only had one argument, which was effectively rebutted by pro, and that argument was not supported by any citations. He gave subjective opinions, and attempted to use them as facts. Neither of them cited enough sources to be granted points in that category.
Vote Placed by RonaldTrumpkin 1 year ago
RonaldTrumpkin
BirdieMachineOldManReidTied
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: Con failed to offer any substantial arguments. Gave no reasons why guns were actually bad other than "There's other options available." He repeated this multiple times and brought nothing to the table in terms of adding to his other point that "we can trust the government to do the right thing."