The Instigator
dinokiller
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
TPF
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law. (continued)

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 5 votes the winner is...
TPF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,764 times Debate No: 13175
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

dinokiller

Pro

The previous one didn't had enough rounds for the debate.
Also, im not convinced about cons arguments so im making a continued debate.
But since the original CON doesn't want to continue with this and TPF wants to continue in his place, I allow him to take his place.

This is the arguments of the previous debate and my arguments against it.

"So the reason you are posting this is that your saying that guns are used in crime and to kill. So next thing they should do is ban knives, forks, pencils, pens, because all of those can be heals against someone to either kill or injure someone severely."

We don't ban knives, forks, pencils, etc, because they are accepted in the social life. We use knives and forks to eat, and its socially accepted. We use pencils and pens to write things in books and its accepted too. But what kind of a person sits at dinner with a gun on his table? What kind of person uses a gun while writing a book?

"The guns come from out of country sources, I don't know how much you know about this type of things but any gun can be traced back to its original buyer and they catch him, then get him to tell them where there guy is. Just like drugs they don't buy them from stores they get them for out of country sources."

You already figured out how the guns can be traded or smuggled.
But, smuggling weapons is hard and running away from cops forever is even harder.
The illegal arms dealing will be solved and if no weapon gets sold legally, there will be no easy ways anymore to get your hands on a firearm.

"Lets just restate, guns don't kill people, the person having the gun kills the person. Guns aren't dangerous at all if used properly."

How is it not dangerous? In any way you use it, you can wound someone and even kill someone. An exception is if you shoot it at a dummy or something.
But not the one that is being shot is always wounded, many gunners and especially the inexperienced ones breaks their arms just by firing the weapon.

Idebate15 thinks he has won the debate, but i doubt this debate has ended yet. (lack of rounds)
TPF

Con

Firstly I'd like to thank Dinokiller for the opportunity to debate this very important but controversial subject. I will first respond to his arguments before adding some of my own.

My opponent states that:

"We don't ban knives, forks, pencils, etc, because they are accepted in the social life. We use knives and forks to eat, and its socially accepted. We use pencils and pens to write things in books and its accepted too. But what kind of a person sits at dinner with a gun on his table? What kind of person uses a gun while writing a book?"

In the USA, guns are "socially accepted". Concealed carry is allowed in many states and many other states have open carry laws. One can go around in public with a assault rifle slung over his shoulder and it would be perfectly lega;. Furthermore most people do not even glance a second time at firearm carrying citizens. Like knives and forks, and pencils and papers, firearms have an important and accepted use in society. They can be used for self-defense and as a hobby. All because a law-abiding citizen owns a gun, it does not mean they are a murderer or would use it for crime.

"You already figured out how the guns can be traded or smuggled.
But, smuggling weapons is hard and running away from cops forever is even harder.
The illegal arms dealing will be solved and if no weapon gets sold legally, there will be no easy ways anymore to get your hands on a firearm."

There will always be a demand for firearms. If they are outlawed, criminals will still want them to carry out their crimes with. Drugs are illegal, and yet millions of people use them and they still get into the country despite a drug war that has cost billions of dollars and lasted over forty years. The demand for guns may not be as high as drugs, but the fact remains that there will be a demand for them and they will be smuggled in and used by criminals. In fact, you can see this in practice now. Automatic weapons are illegal, but many criminals still get their hands on automatic weapons and use them in crimes. By outlawing them, you are giving power to the criminals and taking away a law-abiding citizens right to defend him/herself using these weapons.

"How is it not dangerous? In any way you use it, you can wound someone and even kill someone. An exception is if you shoot it at a dummy or something.
But not the one that is being shot is always wounded, many gunners and especially the inexperienced ones breaks their arms just by firing the weapon."

Many people who own firearms do indeed use them for target practice as a hobby. A gun in the hands of a properly trained and experienced citizen is no more dangerous than a car on the road. Also, I've never heard of someone breaking their arm by firing a weapon. I've heard of wrists, but that only happens because the user fires a very large caliber weapon and does not know how to properly handle the recoil. Millions of firearm users fire their weapons every week and do no break their arms.

I have refuted my opponents arguments and will now introduce some of my own.

Firearms are vital to the defense of democracy against government tyrant. Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, and other authoritarian governments around the world outlawed their citizens from owning guns and then embarked on campaigns of discrimination and genocide against their own populace. Without firearms, citizens are unable to defend themselves against government tyranny and the government can do whatever it wants to the people with no effective resistance. A government would think twice about oppressing its own populace when it was armed.

Firearms give protection to the individual citizen against criminals and could prevent massacres such as those seen at Virginia Tech. The police cannot be everywhere 100% of the time and they are not supermen who sense crime and magically teleport in to stop whatever crime is occurring. By owning a firearm, a women could defense herself against a rapist, a man could prevent himself from being mugged, and a man can defend his family against criminals. All it would have taken at a massacre such as Virginia Tech is one responsible citizen and the loss of life would have been significantly less.

In fact, the worst mass shootings normally take place in areas where guns are now allowed and it is strictly enforced, such as school campus.

I now yield the floor to PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
dinokiller

Pro

I like to thank TPF for accepting this debate, allowing me to continue the arguments.

"In the USA, guns are "socially accepted". Concealed carry is allowed in many states and many other states have open carry laws. One can go around in public with a assault rifle slung over his shoulder and it would be perfectly lega;. Furthermore most people do not even glance a second time at firearm carrying citizens. Like knives and forks, and pencils and papers, firearms have an important and accepted use in society. They can be used for self-defense and as a hobby. All because a law-abiding citizen owns a gun, it does not mean they are a murderer or would use it for crime."

I ask again, if no one in the world has guns, why the heck do you even need a gun to protect yourself?
Also, to be able to carry guns around in the public doesn't instantly mean that its socially accepted if the government says so. Wouldn't YOU find it odd that a 6 year old is walking around with an AK?

"There will always be a demand for firearms. If they are outlawed, criminals will still want them to carry out their crimes with. Drugs are illegal, and yet millions of people use them and they still get into the country despite a drug war that has cost billions of dollars and lasted over forty years. The demand for guns may not be as high as drugs, but the fact remains that there will be a demand for them and they will be smuggled in and used by criminals. In fact, you can see this in practice now. Automatic weapons are illegal, but many criminals still get their hands on automatic weapons and use them in crimes. By outlawing them, you are giving power to the criminals and taking away a law-abiding citizens right to defend him/herself using these weapons."

Why do the citizens need a gun for this then? Most of the crimes (bank robbery example) doesn't even target citizens.
If you were as a citizen to pull out a gun while 3 armed robberies with automatic weapons are in front of you, wouldn't it make them shoot you?You could have gotten away by just cowering down on the ground.
Also the fact that almost all citizens has a firearm makes it easier for criminals actually got your hands on one.
They could just break in their homes on night and steal their gun for free.

"Many people who own firearms do indeed use them for target practice as a hobby. A gun in the hands of a properly trained and experienced citizen is no more dangerous than a car on the road. Also, I've never heard of someone breaking their arm by firing a weapon. I've heard of wrists, but that only happens because the user fires a very large caliber weapon and does not know how to properly handle the recoil. Millions of firearm users fire their weapons every week and do no break their arms."

The fact that you could practice with your gun, means you could actually train yourself in using the gun to prepare for a crime in case a shootout breaks out.

"Firearms are vital to the defense of democracy against government tyrant. Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, and other authoritarian governments around the world outlawed their citizens from owning guns and then embarked on campaigns of discrimination and genocide against their own populace. Without firearms, citizens are unable to defend themselves against government tyranny and the government can do whatever it wants to the people with no effective resistance. A government would think twice about oppressing its own populace when it was armed."

Nazi Germany rised in power because of the huge amount of people who are workless and the high desire of food.
The Nazi pinned those problems on the Jews and everybody believed him (Even you would've believed him at that time), no guns needed right?
The Soviet Union tried to rebuild the economy and industrialize Russia. Why do you even need guns to protect from such ideas? At this time, if weird ideas comes from those groups like banning Jews from the country or something, there will always be democracy.

"Firearms give protection to the individual citizen against criminals and could prevent massacres such as those seen at Virginia Tech. The police cannot be everywhere 100% of the time and they are not supermen who sense crime and magically teleport in to stop whatever crime is occurring. By owning a firearm, a women could defense herself against a rapist, a man could prevent himself from being mugged, and a man can defend his family against criminals. All it would have taken at a massacre such as Virginia Tech is one responsible citizen and the loss of life would have been significantly less."

I agree, the police aren't supermans, but with as big as America there SHOULD be alot of polices around.
Also by owning a firearm, you are protected, BUT don't forget that the rapist or mugger can arm himself too with a firearm. Would you rather lose your life or just get mugged and let the police track the suspect down?
The Virginia Tech Massacre is another example. Firearms are not allowed in school, yet he appeared with 2 pistols inside the school and manage to kill over 30 people. This is an example that the school didn't check good enough for the firearms possibilities. But even so, where did those 2 guns came from? The shop of course since they sell guns.
Would there be such a shootout if no guns are sold? No, which I answer.

You are completely right that the worst mass shooting appears in places where guns are allowed. But if you don't sell those guns, the mass shooting will lessen by alot.

Hereby I give back the floor spot to CON.
TPF

Con

"
I ask again, if no one in the world has guns, why the heck do you even need a gun to protect yourself?
Also, to be able to carry guns around in the public doesn't instantly mean that its socially accepted if the government says so. Wouldn't YOU find it odd that a 6 year old is walking around with an AK?"

The debate isn't about whether or not guns should be banned from the world, the debate is about whether or not the USA should stop selling guns and change the law to make them illegal. Even assuming the USA banned all guns and stopped producing them, criminals could smuggle them in from other nations. Then the citizen would still need guns to defend himself and to ward off government tyranny.

I personally would find it odd that a six year has a AK. I would not at all find it odd that a grown man or women would walk around with one.

"Why do the citizens need a gun for this then? Most of the crimes (bank robbery example) doesn't even target citizens.
If you were as a citizen to pull out a gun while 3 armed robberies with automatic weapons are in front of you, wouldn't it make them shoot you?You could have gotten away by just cowering down on the ground.
Also the fact that almost all citizens has a firearm makes it easier for criminals actually got your hands on one.
They could just break in their homes on night and steal their gun for free."

Except a lot of crime does directly target the individual, such as mugging and robbery as well as rape, just to name a few. It is true that one could cower during a bank robbery and "get away" and it is up to the gun owner whether or not to do anything in that situation. It would be pretty dumb to take on 3 criminals with automatic weapons, but against one it might not be so dumb.

While it 'may' be easier for a criminal to get his hands on a gun since they're legal, they would get them whether or not they were legal. Furthermore, if a criminal broke into your house while you were home and had a gun, that robbery would be over very quickly. There are many ways to secure a firearm if one is not at home, such as trigger locks and other devices. The criminal won't be able to do much with the weapon if the owner has the key.

"The fact that you could practice with your gun, means you could actually train yourself in using the gun to prepare for a crime in case a shootout breaks out."

Yes, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

"Nazi Germany rised in power because of the huge amount of people who are workless and the high desire of food.
The Nazi pinned those problems on the Jews and everybody believed him (Even you would've believed him at that time), no guns needed right?"

This is a rather unabashed assertion. At any rate, if the Jews had been armed they would have had better means to resist against being a target of discrimination and genocide. Hitler passed laws to ban Jews from gun ownership

"The Soviet Union tried to rebuild the economy and industrialize Russia. Why do you even need guns to protect from such ideas? At this time, if weird ideas comes from those groups like banning Jews from the country or something, there will always be democracy."

The USSR also killed millions of Ukrainians in government-created famine and had widespread civil rights violations against numerous groups of society. Communism (Or at least that used in the USSR) is authoritarian and tyrannical. Its "citizens" had no means to resist against their security appretues primarily because they had no guns.

"I agree, the police aren't supermans, but with as big as America there SHOULD be alot of polices around."

Trust me, there are a lot around and they are very militarized. Regardless, they still cannot be magically at every crime and stop it.

"Also by owning a firearm, you are protected, BUT don't forget that the rapist or mugger can arm himself too with a firearm. Would you rather lose your life or just get mugged and let the police track the suspect down?"

That is for the individual to decide. One would certainly be within your rights to. And you're assuming the police will catch the mugger.

"Would there be such a shootout if no guns are sold? No, which I answer."

Let's assume for the sake of argument guns are outlawed and the millions of guns that are in America are all turned into the authorities. How would a person defend themselves? To use a specific example, let's say a women is walking home from work and is assaulted by three young and strong men. What is she supposed to do? While she could use pepper spray, a taser, or a rape whistle, some of these will only work against one attacker and not the rest. If she had a .38 special, all three men could be killed in a much shorter period of time and she would be safe. This can easily be extended to a male walking home for work and being assaulted by a mugger wielding a baseball bat or other improvised weapon. Without a gun, he'd be hopeless against the stronger man who is armed. A gun evens those odds considerably. Guns allow people who wouldn't otherwise be able to protect themselves physically normally to do so.

Even in your Utopian world where no guns exist at all, other weapons and crime would exist. Do we really want to go back to the time were the strongest man usually got his way?

"You are completely right that the worst mass shooting appears in places where guns are allowed. But if you don't sell those guns, the mass shooting will lessen by alot."

I actually made a typo. I meant to say the worst atrocities are committed in areas (such as schools) where guns are strictly prohibited.
Debate Round No. 2
dinokiller

Pro

You sure took your time xD, but anyway you haven't responded to the fact that you could buy 2 guns from the store and kill over 30 people in the school. By not responding means you actually accept the argument which is a major argument against the selling of guns in USA.

"The debate isn't about whether or not guns should be banned from the world, the debate is about whether or not the USA should stop selling guns and change the law to make them illegal. Even assuming the USA banned all guns and stopped producing them, criminals could smuggle them in from other nations. Then the citizen would still need guns to defend himself and to ward off government tyranny."

I never ever stated that guns should be banned from the world, i simply show you that USA would be better off without the selling of firearms. And even so, how easy do you think smuggling is? Every border has a check post or something whatever its called and at airports, theres the customs who WOULD check your luggage for anything suspicious like firearms, explosives etc. Also, the government cannot be reckless and order all the people who are against him to be executed. It attracts alot of attention and suspicion from neightbour lands and just like Hitler, who puts the blame on jews and attacked Poland. You could defend yourself from such tyranny, but you will not survive.
You will be better off by just following the other people.

"I personally would find it odd that a six year has a AK. I would not at all find it odd that a grown man or women would walk around with one."

We don't want your opinion, but even so, if you saw someone with an AK for example, doesn't that make YOU feel threatened? Everyone wants to safely walk around the streets without the sight of firearms, but you see people around with pistols and shotgun. NO ONE wants that.

"Except a lot of crime does directly target the individual, such as mugging and robbery as well as rape, just to name a few. It is true that one could cower during a bank robbery and "get away" and it is up to the gun owner whether or not to do anything in that situation. It would be pretty dumb to take on 3 criminals with automatic weapons, but against one it might not be so dumb."

You gotta be kidding me, no one here would be dumb enough to rob a bank on his own. But theres a possibility of an one man robbery armed with an AK in shops. Even so, you still are better off without the gun. No one would pull a pistol while under surveillance of the robber since it will end up with you getting shot.

"While it 'may' be easier for a criminal to get his hands on a gun since they're legal, they would get them whether or not they were legal. Furthermore, if a criminal broke into your house while you were home and had a gun, that robbery would be over very quickly. There are many ways to secure a firearm if one is not at home, such as trigger locks and other devices. The criminal won't be able to do much with the weapon if the owner has the key."

You are absolutely right about this, but ending the robbery with a shootout will be bad for the people not involved like your children.

Also, what i mean about the target practice is, you want to assassinate someone, but have no experience with a sniper rifle. Of course the shooting range offers you the chance to experience with the sniper rifle.
Another example is if you got yourself a heavy firearm that you have no experience with, you could just go to the shooting range and do it like you did with the sniper rifle. Being experienced in firearm is much better for the criminals.
We civilians has no need to be on a shooting range since we will NEVER use a gun for a purpose other then killing.

"This is a rather unabashed assertion. At any rate, if the Jews had been armed they would have had better means to resist against being a target of discrimination and genocide. Hitler passed laws to ban Jews from gun ownership"

This is a rather unrelated argument, but for the sake of argue my argument comes that the Jews already think its over.
The jews sees Hitler as an Anti Christ and thought the end was near. And even if they are armed with weapons, they are no match for the trained Wehrmacht.

"The USSR also killed millions of Ukrainians in government-created famine and had widespread civil rights violations against numerous groups of society. Communism (Or at least that used in the USSR) is authoritarian and tyrannical. Its "citizens" had no means to resist against their security appretues primarily because they had no guns."

Once again, you are absolutely right, but the fact if a shootout breaks out, its bad for both shooters and the innocent bystanders. Also, if you even managed to kill a soldier coming for you, you WILL be hunted. And the reaction of the Soviet Union will be more intense.

"Trust me, there are a lot around and they are very militarized. Regardless, they still cannot be magically at every crime and stop it."

I tell you again, no guns sold = less crimes.

"That is for the individual to decide. One would certainly be within your rights to. And you're assuming the police will catch the mugger."

What you wanna do then? Catch the mugger yourself? Or shoot him in the head if you see him again?
The police does his job so he will be caught.

"Let's assume for the sake of argument guns are outlawed and the millions of guns that are in America are all turned into the authorities. How would a person defend themselves? To use a specific example, let's say a women is walking home from work and is assaulted by three young and strong men. What is she supposed to do? While she could use pepper spray, a taser, or a rape whistle, some of these will only work against one attacker and not the rest. If she had a .38 special, all three men could be killed in a much shorter period of time and she would be safe. This can easily be extended to a male walking home for work and being assaulted by a mugger wielding a baseball bat or other improvised weapon. Without a gun, he'd be hopeless against the stronger man who is armed. A gun evens those odds considerably. Guns allow people who wouldn't otherwise be able to protect themselves physically normally to do so."

And here comes my same argument. At night, if 3 man are coming at you armed too and already has a pistol drawed on you because it is planned, do YOU think you had the time to draw a gun and shoot back? No, I answer.
Now lets look at the other way. If you see 3 man coming unarmed, attempting to rape you (or rob, unless its gay rape :P) and you have a taser and a pepperspray, you could just fight back by using a pepperspray in the eyes or shoot them with a taser. If the robber or raper is armed with by example a baseball bat or a knife, you could just still use the pepperspray or taser on him. Don't have one? Thats your problem.

"Even in your Utopian world where no guns exist at all, other weapons and crime would exist. Do we really want to go back to the time were the strongest man usually got his way?"

Yes, crime does still exist, but it will be harder for criminals to pull of a crime and even harder if he meets the cops armed. Firearms may work both for civilians and criminals, but criminals will pull off their crimes easier.

"I actually made a typo. I meant to say the worst atrocities are committed in areas (such as schools) where guns are strictly prohibited."

You actually contradicted yourself here. Firearms are NOT allowed in school and yet, shootout appears in schools and the number of shootouts starts to increase every year. Such shootouts will be lessened by ALOT if no guns are even sold. (Remember my argument about the Virginia Tech Massacre)

I see firearms as a threat to the world, but also as a weapon against the criminals. But if firearms can be sold to anyone, it won't be safe anymore.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
TPF

Con

"I never ever stated that guns should be banned from the world, i simply show you that USA would be better off without the selling of firearms."

You said "If no-one in the world has guns". Obviously if nobody in the world has guns that would be nice. But even if guns were outlawed in the USA, other nations would still produce them.

"And even so, how easy do you think smuggling is? Every border has a check post or something whatever its called and at airports, theres the customs who WOULD check your luggage for anything suspicious like firearms, explosives etc"

I'm not saying smuggling is easy. But that's not the point. Smuggling would still occur, and guns would still be brought into the country. Drugs are illegal here, but they still get into the country, as well as many other illegal substances and items. There is no way for customs to stop 100% of the smuggling.

"Also, the government cannot be reckless and order all the people who are against him to be executed. It attracts alot of attention and suspicion from neightbour lands and just like Hitler, who puts the blame on jews and attacked Poland. You could defend yourself from such tyranny, but you will not survive.
You will be better off by just following the other people."

History says differently. Obviously no government comes out openly and says they're going to genocide an entire group of people but it happens all the time, again in nations with gun control.
"
We don't want your opinion, but even so, if you saw someone with an AK for example, doesn't that make YOU feel threatened? Everyone wants to safely walk around the streets without the sight of firearms, but you see people around with pistols and shotgun. NO ONE wants that."

You're telling me you don't want my opinion but this is clearly also your opinion. I would have no issue with people walking around armed, as would alot of other people.

"You gotta be kidding me, no one here would be dumb enough to rob a bank on his own. But theres a possibility of an one man robbery armed with an AK in shops. Even so, you still are better off without the gun. No one would pull a pistol while under surveillance of the robber since it will end up with you getting shot."

I was using bank robbery as an example and there are some cases where one person does rob a bank. The analogy applies to plenty of other crimes. Obviously a person wouldn't pull out a firearm while being watched by the robber but if the chance arose then somebody with one may be able to stop the crime.

"You are absolutely right about this, but ending the robbery with a shootout will be bad for the people not involved like your children."

And letting the house be robbed with your children is a good ending? (Assuming there is even children involved). It is up to the gun owner to decide in any given situation whether or not the use of force would be appropriate. By outlawing guns completely the gun owner doesn't even have the option.

"Also, what i mean about the target practice is, you want to assassinate someone, but have no experience with a sniper rifle. Of course the shooting range offers you the chance to experience with the sniper rifle.
Another example is if you got yourself a heavy firearm that you have no experience with, you could just go to the shooting range and do it like you did with the sniper rifle. Being experienced in firearm is much better for the criminals.
We civilians has no need to be on a shooting range since we will NEVER use a gun for a purpose other then killing."

Practicing at a shooting range benefits the responsible gun owner just as much if not more than a criminal. Sure a criminal could practice for an 'assassination' but a citizen could also practice with a handgun in order to prevent being mugged while walking home from work. Also plenty of people use guns for a hobby and recreational shooting without ever intending to actually use one to kill people with.

"This is a rather unrelated argument, but for the sake of argue my argument comes that the Jews already think its over.
The jews sees Hitler as an Anti Christ and thought the end was near. And even if they are armed with weapons, they are no match for the trained Wehrmacht."

This argument is not unrelated at all. Gun ownership is an essential defense against tyrannical governments. If guns were outlawed people would loose the means to defend themselves. Furthermore there is a style of warfare which called the insurgency, would be the kind used had the Jews been armed. Insurgencies have been highly successful in the past and have defeated even well-trained armies with superior numbers. It is certainly better than sitting back and allowing one's race to be exterminated.

"Once again, you are absolutely right, but the fact if a shootout breaks out, its bad for both shooters and the innocent bystanders. Also, if you even managed to kill a soldier coming for you, you WILL be hunted. And the reaction of the Soviet Union will be more intense."

" It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees". It doesn't have to be just one person resisting. Join with like-minded individuals and the ability to resist becomes even greater. But with gun ownership banned, this is not even an option.

"I tell you again, no guns sold = less crimes."

Not true. Australian crime is up. [1] So is UK crime. [2]

"What you wanna do then? Catch the mugger yourself? Or shoot him in the head if you see him again?
The police does his job so he will be caught."

I wasn't suggesting either. I was suggesting shooting the mugger when he is trying to rob you. Or standing back and letting him do so- if for some reason there is less of a risk in that. Again, It's up to the gun owner to decide.

"And here comes my same argument. At night, if 3 man are coming at you armed too and already has a pistol drawed on you because it is planned, do YOU think you had the time to draw a gun and shoot back? No, I answer.
Now lets look at the other way. If you see 3 man coming unarmed, attempting to rape you (or rob, unless its gay rape :P) and you have a taser and a pepperspray, you could just fight back by using a pepperspray in the eyes or shoot them with a taser. If the robber or raper is armed with by example a baseball bat or a knife, you could just still use the pepperspray or taser on him. Don't have one? Thats your problem."

If a gun is already drawn on you it is true that you can't really do much, but that's not always a case. Pepper spray and a taser are non-lethal, knives and baseball bats are. Three strong thugs can overpower a women even if she has these, with a gun they cannot. The UK has serious problems with knives. This just shows that criminals will use lethal weapons to force their will.

"Yes, crime does still exist, but it will be harder for criminals to pull of a crime and even harder if he meets the cops armed. Firearms may work both for civilians and criminals, but criminals will pull off their crimes easier."

If firearms are outlawed, why do the police need guns? Look at the UK, where only special units have guns.

"You actually contradicted yourself here. Firearms are NOT allowed in school and yet, shootout appears in schools and the number of shootouts starts to increase every year. Such shootouts will be lessened by ALOT if no guns are even sold. (Remember my argument about the Virginia Tech Massacre)"

Not really. If guns were allowed on campus then it would be possible for a responsible citizen to end a shootout before it gets worse. That is not possible on a campus now. Even if guns were outlawed, the mass murderer could use other weapons. See, China and its knife attacks. [3] Violence is always going to occur. By outlawing guns power goes to the stronger man.

SOURCES:
1: http://www.wnd.com...
2:http://reason.com...
3:http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
dinokiller

Pro

"You said "If no-one in the world has guns". Obviously if nobody in the world has guns that would be nice. But even if guns were outlawed in the USA, other nations would still produce them."

Yes, you are completely right about the fact that other nations will produce guns. But, America is the only country that sells firearms to citizens.

"I'm not saying smuggling is easy. But that's not the point. Smuggling would still occur, and guns would still be brought into the country. Drugs are illegal here, but they still get into the country, as well as many other illegal substances and items. There is no way for customs to stop 100% of the smuggling."

The diffculty of smuggling could end with the smuggler in jail. Like I said, the difficulty DOES matter and if America keep up with the anti smuggling operations, less guns will be smuggled in america and less people will be even need a gun to protect yourself.

"History says differently. Obviously no government comes out openly and says they're going to genocide an entire group of people but it happens all the time, again in nations with gun control."

You think something like that would go unnoticed by the neightbour lands? Do you really think that if theres a civil war in a country, it would go unnoticed? I don't know where you got the source, but nothing in the world went unnoticed.

"You're telling me you don't want my opinion but this is clearly also your opinion. I would have no issue with people walking around armed, as would alot of other people."

THAT IS NOT MY OPINION, it is a fact that everyone in the world fears firearms. Ask anyone and they most of them will reply about the danger of guns.

"I was using bank robbery as an example and there are some cases where one person does rob a bank. The analogy applies to plenty of other crimes. Obviously a person wouldn't pull out a firearm while being watched by the robber but if the chance arose then somebody with one may be able to stop the crime."

I came across the fact that firearms are NOT allowed in banks, so if firearms are not allowed in banks, why do a civilian need one then if a guard or a police offer is allowed to carry one inside the bank?
Allowing people walk around with guns with them, do you think the employees of shops and banks won't be afraid of them all?

"And letting the house be robbed with your children is a good ending? (Assuming there is even children involved). It is up to the gun owner to decide in any given situation whether or not the use of force would be appropriate. By outlawing guns completely the gun owner doesn't even have the option."

Ok, I guess you are right that when facing an armed robber, you would pulled a gun to defend against this burglar.
I can't argue with you about this fact since its a person's natural behavior.
But, burglars armed with firearms are incredibly rare in nations where guns are not sold. Not involving the firearm would be a better option.

"Practicing at a shooting range benefits the responsible gun owner just as much if not more than a criminal. Sure a criminal could practice for an 'assassination' but a citizen could also practice with a handgun in order to prevent being mugged while walking home from work. Also plenty of people use guns for a hobby and recreational shooting without ever intending to actually use one to kill people with."

Yes you can use the shooting range as hobby, and its not wrong either. But, the fact that even criminals could use such shooting range is bad for the victims. I guess the shooting range works for civilians and criminals both if guns are involved.

"This argument is not unrelated at all. Gun ownership is an essential defense against tyrannical governments. If guns were outlawed people would loose the means to defend themselves. Furthermore there is a style of warfare which called the insurgency, would be the kind used had the Jews been armed. Insurgencies have been highly successful in the past and have defeated even well-trained armies with superior numbers. It is certainly better than sitting back and allowing one's race to be exterminated."

But here comes my answer, if you arm the jews with firearms, do you even think they would fight back? They already think its over for them, seeing Hitler as the Anti Christ. And also, even armed with weapons, they are stil NO match for the Wehrmacht. They had access to tanks, battleships and airplanes. This applies to all countries should the civilians wage war against his own government.

"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees". It doesn't have to be just one person resisting. Join with like-minded individuals and the ability to resist becomes even greater. But with gun ownership banned, this is not even an option."

Like I said, you think you could resist your government by arming yourself with a gun and joining a resistance group if a tank comes mowing over you, a carpet bomb comes or a navy bombardment has been ordered? No.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees will apply better on soldiers helping for the good cause.

"Not true. Australian crime is up. [1] So is UK crime. [2]"

Australia and UK amount of gun involved crimes are nowhere near the one at USA.
The amount of crimes of the whole world is the same as the crimes of USA x5 which is ALOT considering how many countries there are. You stated that Australian and UK crime has been going up. This is not true, it has been actually decreasing there. Australia forbid the selling of guns and UK took even a more drastic measure by not allowing ANYONE to wield a gun, not even the police officers.

"I wasn't suggesting either. I was suggesting shooting the mugger when he is trying to rob you. Or standing back and letting him do so- if for some reason there is less of a risk in that. Again, It's up to the gun owner to decide."

Yeah, I agree, its human natural behavior after all.

"If a gun is already drawn on you it is true that you can't really do much, but that's not always a case. Pepper spray and a taser are non-lethal, knives and baseball bats are. Three strong thugs can overpower a women even if she has these, with a gun they cannot. The UK has serious problems with knives. This just shows that criminals will use lethal weapons to force their will."

You're wrong actually. Pepper spray is a strong weapon since it BLINDS the target and I tell you blind = they cannot see you = they cannot rob, rape etc. you. Taser, also a strong weapon can take out even the strongest human in the world as electricity disables your vital muscles and because of that, you are stunned, not being able to move.
With so many weapons for her for disposal, she had many options to deal with thugs and flee.

"If firearms are outlawed, why do the police need guns? Look at the UK, where only special units have guns."

Police officers are here to fight crimes and because of that,they ARE allowed to wield guns. It is a rule that is accepted by almost any countries. And don't just include UK here, ALL special units has guns.

"Not really. If guns were allowed on campus then it would be possible for a responsible citizen to end a shootout before it gets worse. That is not possible on a campus now. Even if guns were outlawed, the mass murderer could use other weapons. See, China and its knife attacks. [3] Violence is always going to occur. By outlawing guns power goes to the stronger man."

You will agree with me that firearms are far more dangerous then knives. And all mass murderers are using a firearm if they get the chance to use firearms. In China, its hard to get your hands on a gun and they choose melee weapons instead which is better then a firearm. If a firearm was used instead, more deaths would occur.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.w...
TPF

Con

"Yes, you are completely right about the fact that other nations will produce guns. But, America is the only country that sells firearms to citizens."

This is not true. Switzerland sells them to citizens. And they're not the only ones.

"The diffculty of smuggling could end with the smuggler in jail. Like I said, the difficulty DOES matter and if America keep up with the anti smuggling operations, less guns will be smuggled in america and less people will be even need a gun to protect yourself."

It is simply a matter of risk versus reward. There will always be a demand for firearms, so they would always be smuggled in. If enough money is offered, smugglers would take the risk.

"You think something like that would go unnoticed by the neightbour lands? Do you really think that if theres a civil war in a country, it would go unnoticed? I don't know where you got the source, but nothing in the world went unnoticed."

Hitler did not openly come out and say he was going to exterminate the Jews but he did.

"THAT IS NOT MY OPINION, it is a fact that everyone in the world fears firearms. Ask anyone and they most of them will reply about the danger of guns."

It is your opinion. There are many many people who do not fear firearms. Unless you can come up with a source that says so, it is your opinion. I'm sure some people ARE afraid of guns, but lots of people do not fear them.

"I came across the fact that firearms are NOT allowed in banks, so if firearms are not allowed in banks, why do a civilian need one then if a guard or a police offer is allowed to carry one inside the bank?
Allowing people walk around with guns with them, do you think the employees of shops and banks won't be afraid of them all?"

So now private security guards are allowed guns? Why do they as (private citizens) get to carry guns but not normal citizens? Previously you stated that only public officials should be able to acquire them. I understand you're from a culture where things like open-carry simply do not exist. But open-carry is common in the USA and all because somebody has a gun does not mean people fear them or start panicking. And it doesn't really matter if guns are "allowed" in the banks, somehow I doubt a bank robber cares.

"Ok, I guess you are right that when facing an armed robber, you would pulled a gun to defend against this burglar.
I can't argue with you about this fact since its a person's natural behavior.
But, burglars armed with firearms are incredibly rare in nations where guns are not sold. Not involving the firearm would be a better option."

Its the same with knives or other weapons as well.

"But here comes my answer, if you arm the jews with firearms, do you even think they would fight back? They already think its over for them, seeing Hitler as the Anti Christ. And also, even armed with weapons, they are stil NO match for the Wehrmacht. They had access to tanks, battleships and airplanes. This applies to all countries should the civilians wage war against his own government."

Why wouldn't they fight back? At any rate, all because a country has battleships, tanks, and planes does not mean that an insurgency is doomed to fail. See the USSR invasion of Afghanistan [2] and the insurgency against the French in Algeria. [3]

"Like I said, you think you could resist your government by arming yourself with a gun and joining a resistance group if a tank comes mowing over you, a carpet bomb comes or a navy bombardment has been ordered? No.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees will apply better on soldiers helping for the good cause."

The Jews had no soldiers to support to help them. There is not always going to be somebody to help. Honestly I would hope that a enemy would use carpet bombing and naval bombardment against an insurgency, they have tenacity to kill innocent civilians and push them over to the insurgency.

"Australia and UK amount of gun involved crimes are nowhere near the one at USA.
The amount of crimes of the whole world is the same as the crimes of USA x5 which is ALOT considering how many countries there are. You stated that Australian and UK crime has been going up. This is not true, it has been actually decreasing there. Australia forbid the selling of guns and UK took even a more drastic measure by not allowing ANYONE to wield a gun, not even the police officers."

The point is not if gun related crime went up. Its that overall crime did. This is because citizens can no longer use guns to defend themselves. When somebody decided to mug you, as an example, there is a a cost-benefit ratio to consider. If the mugger has a bat and guns are illegal and he is planning to mug a small women walking, he knows he can most likely succeed without serious bodily harm or death. Even if she has pepper spray, there's not going to be any permanent damage. In a society with guns, there is the same situation. Now the mugger has to take into consideration that the target may have a gun, and that could result in death or serious bodily injury. Even if the mugger has a gun, there is still a good chance of this occurring. Obviously some would take the risk anyway- but the cost-benefit ratio is tilted far better in a society that allows law-abiding citizens to carry firearms.

"You're wrong actually. Pepper spray is a strong weapon since it BLINDS the target and I tell you blind = they cannot see you = they cannot rob, rape etc. you. Taser, also a strong weapon can take out even the strongest human in the world as electricity disables your vital muscles and because of that, you are stunned, not being able to move.
With so many weapons for her for disposal, she had many options to deal with thugs and flee."

All of which can only take on a single target at once. There's three big thugs. A gun could take all three, pepper spray or a taser could not.

"Police officers are here to fight crimes and because of that,they ARE allowed to wield guns. It is a rule that is accepted by almost any countries. And don't just include UK here, ALL special units has guns."

But why do they need guns if there are none in society? You've already used this argument against me elsewhere- so what make the police need guns if there are none?

"You will agree with me that firearms are far more dangerous then knives. And all mass murderers are using a firearm if they get the chance to use firearms. In China, its hard to get your hands on a gun and they choose melee weapons instead which is better then a firearm. If a firearm was used instead, more deaths would occur."

And a citizen is powerless to stop it. Now imagine if the teacher had a gun- that would take care of the murderer quickly. Even assuming the murderer had a gun instead of a knife, the teacher could have the chance to end it.

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.smallarmssurvey.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
dinokiller

Pro

Final round sigh...

"This is not true. Switzerland sells them to citizens. And they're not the only ones."

Oh well, my bad I guess.

"It is simply a matter of risk versus reward. There will always be a demand for firearms, so they would always be smuggled in. If enough money is offered, smugglers would take the risk."

What I mean about the difficulty of smuggling is that if more smugglers are caught, less smuggling would occur. Improving the anti-smuggling programs would ensure that not all, but most of the smugglers get caught.
Less succesfull smuggling = less guns in America by smuggling.

"Hitler did not openly come out and say he was going to exterminate the Jews but he did."

Hitler DID come out openly, pinning the blame on Jews and said to exterminate them all.

"It is your opinion. There are many many people who do not fear firearms. Unless you can come up with a source that says so, it is your opinion. I'm sure some people ARE afraid of guns, but lots of people do not fear them."

Guess I just put this aside. There are both people that likes guns and those that fear guns.

"So now private security guards are allowed guns? Why do they as (private citizens) get to carry guns but not normal citizens? Previously you stated that only public officials should be able to acquire them. I understand you're from a culture where things like open-carry simply do not exist. But open-carry is common in the USA and all because somebody has a gun does not mean people fear them or start panicking. And it doesn't really matter if guns are "allowed" in the banks, somehow I doubt a bank robber cares."

Guards has firearms because they are guards. Being a guard means you must guard something by all means possible.
If criminals wants to rob a bank, they have to deal with the guards first. However, letting civilians walk in banks with a gun in the holster makes everyone go alert. The civilian with a gun could be a mass murderer or wanting to rob a bank and he could pull a gun and wreak havoc inside a bank.
Same in the streets. You may see nice people with firearms with them, but you will never know if someone suddenly walks up to you and shoots you suddenly at the streets.

"Its the same with knives or other weapons as well."

How can a knife be the same as a gun? Gun is a ranged weapon, while the knife can only be used by stabbing someone close. Also, since most house has a baseball bat, its works better against a knife wielding burglar then a burglar armed with a firearm.

"Why wouldn't they fight back? At any rate, all because a country has battleships, tanks, and planes does not mean that an insurgency is doomed to fail. See the USSR invasion of Afghanistan [2] and the insurgency against the French in Algeria. [3]"

The soviet invasion on Afghan and Algeria has nothing to do with the population armed with firearms. Soviet has special force units like Spetsnaz and are heavily armed while Algeria has mortar and heavy weapons. No shop in the world sells mortars or rocket launchers.

"The Jews had no soldiers to support to help them. There is not always going to be somebody to help. Honestly I would hope that a enemy would use carpet bombing and naval bombardment against an insurgency, they have tenacity to kill innocent civilians and push them over to the insurgency."

You want a country to kill hundreds of families including childrens just to get people join the insurgency? That doesn't stop a war. But even so, thats no reason to give them a gun.

"The point is not if gun related crime went up. Its that overall crime did. This is because citizens can no longer use guns to defend themselves. When somebody decided to mug you, as an example, there is a a cost-benefit ratio to consider. If the mugger has a bat and guns are illegal and he is planning to mug a small women walking, he knows he can most likely succeed without serious bodily harm or death. Even if she has pepper spray, there's not going to be any permanent damage. In a society with guns, there is the same situation. Now the mugger has to take into consideration that the target may have a gun, and that could result in death or serious bodily injury. Even if the mugger has a gun, there is still a good chance of this occurring. Obviously some would take the risk anyway- but the cost-benefit ratio is tilted far better in a society that allows law-abiding citizens to carry firearms."

We SHOULD be looking at the gun crime, since the amount of crimes involved are increasing every year! The cause of the increase is of course by the fact that you can buy guns from the shop. Since we all know that guns are far more dangerous then knifes, guns shouldn't be sold. Now you keep saying that a pepperspray or taser isn't effective, BUT IT IS EFFECTIVE. Pepperspray can blind and taser can stun. Now why do you want to cause permanent damage anyway? You're not here to finish off the thug and the damage that pepperspray or taser causes is long enough for you to run anyway.

"All of which can only take on a single target at once. There's three big thugs. A gun could take all three, pepper spray or a taser could not."

Pepper spray could take on 3 big thugs as long as you dont run out of it.

"But why do they need guns if there are none in society? You've already used this argument against me elsewhere- so what make the police need guns if there are none?"

And here comes by returning argument. Police are here to fight crimes so its socially accepted that they have guns. The police risk themself to save others so why do you want to forbid them from using a gun? For example a hostage situation where a thug is armed with a knife with a hostage, you could just shoot the thug from afar. Also by giving other citizens guns, like I said can raise alert since a citizen could be a criminal wanting to kill someone and a hostage situation with a thug armed with a firearm is EVEN more dangerous.

"And a citizen is powerless to stop it. Now imagine if the teacher had a gun- that would take care of the murderer quickly. Even assuming the murderer had a gun instead of a knife, the teacher could have the chance to end it."

Anyone can start a school shooting, even a teacher. If a teacher comes in with a gun in the classroom, do you think all students in the classroom would relax? The teacher could draw the pistol and shoot everyone at every moment.
But firearms aren't allowed in school now and the school shooting could be prevented just by having the school check more frequently on firearms.

Gun crimes and school shootings would lessen alot if the shop stops selling guns. Even now, school shooting happens almost 5 times every year with each year increasing which is bad since students should be safe in education. (Virginia Tech Massacre is a good example) Also there are those occassions where childrens are playing with a gun because they don't know what it is and end up killing somebody with it.

Vote pro :P

Source:
http://www.learnaboutguns.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
TPF

Con

"What I mean about the difficulty of smuggling is that if more smugglers are caught, less smuggling would occur. Improving the anti-smuggling programs would ensure that not all, but most of the smugglers get caught.
Less succesfull smuggling = less guns in America by smuggling."

While I agree I think the point is being missed. There would still be enough guns getting into the country that it would have a significant impact on crime. Law-abiding citizens would be powerless to defend themselves against the criminals.

"Guards has firearms because they are guards. Being a guard means you must guard something by all means possible.
If criminals wants to rob a bank, they have to deal with the guards first. However, letting civilians walk in banks with a gun in the holster makes everyone go alert. The civilian with a gun could be a mass murderer or wanting to rob a bank and he could pull a gun and wreak havoc inside a bank.
Same in the streets. You may see nice people with firearms with them, but you will never know if someone suddenly walks up to you and shoots you suddenly at the streets."

So somebody who guards property like a bank is allowed to carry a firearm, but a regular citizen is not allowed to defend his/her life and property with one? Sure a "civilian" could be a mass murderer, or more than likely he/she is just putting their work check in the bank.

"The soviet invasion on Afghan and Algeria has nothing to do with the population armed with firearms. Soviet has special force units like Spetsnaz and are heavily armed while Algeria has mortar and heavy weapons. No shop in the world sells mortars or rocket launchers."

This has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. These two countries successfully beat off invasions and occupations by insurgency, which previously you said couldn't happen because of "tanks, planes, and battleships".

"We SHOULD be looking at the gun crime, since the amount of crimes involved are increasing every year! The cause of the increase is of course by the fact that you can buy guns from the shop. Since we all know that guns are far more dangerous then knifes,"

This doesn't really mean anything, as guns used by criminals can be purchased illegally.

"And here comes by returning argument. Police are here to fight crimes so its socially accepted that they have guns. The police risk themself to save others so why do you want to forbid them from using a gun? For example a hostage situation where a thug is armed with a knife with a hostage, you could just shoot the thug from afar. Also by giving other citizens guns, like I said can raise alert since a citizen could be a criminal wanting to kill someone and a hostage situation with a thug armed with a firearm is EVEN more dangerous."

And a responsible citizen could shoot that knife-wielding hostage taker himself. But I guess this is a matter of the lesser evil. It would be nice if nobody BUT the police had guns, but since smuggling occurs, it is better to allow the law-abiding citizen to protect him/herself.

"Anyone can start a school shooting, even a teacher. If a teacher comes in with a gun in the classroom, do you think all students in the classroom would relax? The teacher could draw the pistol and shoot everyone at every moment.
But firearms aren't allowed in school now and the school shooting could be prevented just by having the school check more frequently on firearms."

True, but students trust their teachers and so does the school/parents. And no school is going to be able find all firearms and seize them. There is a movement in the USA to allow both teachers and students to carry guns on campus.

"Also there are those occassions where childrens are playing with a gun because they don't know what it is and end up killing somebody with it."

This is an example of unrepsonsible parents not properly securing their firearms. It is unfortunate, but it is no reason to punish the majority of responsible gun owners.

My opponent has brought up some interesting points. Unfortunately they seem to be based on emotion and his view of how the world should work and not how it actually does. My opponent states that if there are no guns for sale there is no reason for citizens to carry them. This is true, but he ignores the problem of smuggling and the fact that criminals would be able to get them anyway. My opponent failed to refute my argument that gun rights help to defend the people against government tyranny. My opponent brought up the point that a citizen can defend him/herself with non-lethal weapons. While I agree, I have shown these are not as effective as firearms.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and comment on English. Despite English not being his primary language, I had no problems understanding it.

Thank you for reading, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
What do you think is a safer environment, anti-gun liberal New York City or gun-toting Bible thumping Pheonix, Arizona ?

Pheonix Arizona is the safer environment.
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
dinokiller
Oh well, I think i need to work hard on my english... Most of the time, i dont even understands what hes trying to prove :P
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The important reference for gun law debates is "More Guns, Less Crime," a book written by a professional statistician who analyzed crime rates relative to gun restrictions. the bottom line is that guns provide a substantial deterrent to crime. About a thousand crimes per day are foiled by armed citizens.

About half the households in Switzerland and Israel have automatic weapons, required of military reservists. Crime rates are nonetheless low.

There is strong moral obligation to allow people to defend themselves. If there is no crime problem or if the police provide very good security, then maybe self-defense is not required, but neither is the case in the U.S. In addition to guns being smuggled in, it is not very difficult to build guns. The supply to criminals is guaranteed.

The debate would have benefited from more hard evidence, but still Con had the better of it. He made he right arguments.
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
dinokiller
Im no genius :P I don't even speak english well.
Posted by tornshoe92 7 years ago
tornshoe92
Over half of this debate has been pro not understanding what con is trying to say. The other half has just been speculation and opinion from both sides though con has provided more reasoning rather than assumptions.
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
dinokiller
Sigh, I know that guns are used as protection, but chance of deaths are less to occur without firearms involved.
Posted by Eldaforever 7 years ago
Eldaforever
"We don't want your opinion, but even so, if you saw someone with an AK for example, doesn't that make YOU feel threatened? Everyone wants to safely walk around the streets without the sight of firearms, but you see people around with pistols and shotgun. NO ONE wants that."
"You gotta be kidding me, no one here would be dumb enough to rob a bank on his own. But theres a possibility of an one man robbery armed with an AK in shops. Even so, you still are better off without the gun. No one would pull a pistol while under surveillance of the robber since it will end up with you getting shot."

These are both opinions, not facts. Where is your basis for saying that 'no one' wants citizens legally carrying firearms on the streets? Where is your basis for saying that 'no one' would pull a pistol on a robber?

http://www.opposingviews.com... (In this one the police actually reloaded the woman's gun for her afterward, indicating that some POLICE want citizens carrying weapons)

http://joblessbloggers.com...

I find it ironic that PRO cited an article about how unsafe the streets in London are, when London has a stricter gun ban law than the US does. Also, the article does not talk about guns. The mentioned Steve was physically attacked, NOT WITH GUNS, but used physical force. Wouldn't a gun have given him a little piece of mind that he was not totally helpless?
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

From the very same website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
dinokiller
used exactly 8000 words :P
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
dinokiller
i lmao'ed :P
Posted by mongoosecake 7 years ago
mongoosecake
"What kind of person uses a gun while writing a book?" Ernest Hemingway :P
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 7 years ago
BillBonJovi
dinokillerTPFTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
dinokillerTPFTied
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 
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 7 years ago
tornshoe92
dinokillerTPFTied
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 
Vote Placed by dudewth 7 years ago
dudewth
dinokillerTPFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongoosecake 7 years ago
mongoosecake
dinokillerTPFTied
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:70