The Instigator
Imbster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
HeavenlyPanda
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

We need weapons

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: 7/10/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 93547
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

Imbster

Con

Hi I'm a 13 year old I'm new! I'm excited to finally start debating with amazing people. I know I may have lack of experience having attended only 3 formal debates but winning all of them and now that I'm here treat me bad.
Intro:
I believe we are all just one race,the human race. Why are we still using metal against each other?This problem has been here for THOUSANDS of YEARS causing pain to other humans and bring upon the idea of revenge. An eye for an eye. Without weapons I believe world war one and two would just be a debate or fist fight among soldiers to see who hits the hardest or fastest. The millions of dollars...all spent on a war machine and what's sad is the war machine is fed with bullets and fuel and what about the children?!What about the basic rights of children to eat,live and have a good education. Giving up weapons for children is a huge security risk for a country,I know that but really the only risk is our brain. How we think can affect the whole future of the country as a leader. How we think can kill or save lives. Have we lost our compassion and accumulated a sense of satisfaction looking at a weapon bought from the taxes of the people?Sell the weapons!Feed the poor become a nation and not a war freak. If the Constitution states eating poop is legal because of amazing nutrition benefits(which is probably false)should we just follow it or does the government have actual power to change that or as they say they're 'busy'. What I'm saying is I know security is part of sovereignity.Can't we all let that go to save more lives?
We know there are terrorist threats and protecting the country from threats is a top priority but let me ask you why were there terrorists and rebels in the first place?Cause they just want to wave a gun wage war? Understanding is more important than weapons for me. I know this is a childish perspective,I don't know anything about protecting the whole country but hey I know a simple right or wrong question.
Anyone,please accept the challenge if you disagree.
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

People always say "you can't fight fire with fire". But then what are you suppose to fight it with? A cup of a water? A cup of water isn't going to do much against a raging fire. This is practically what my opponent implied. Making a weapons ban will not help. What about the police that protect us from "bad guys"? They'll be weapon less against criminals who don't care whether weapons have been banned or not. Terrorists don't care about what's been banned or not. Terrorists aren't going to just say "oh dear weapons aren't legal? Guess we better not buy them." Terrorists still murder even though its illegal. You really think the world war 1 and 2 could have been a fist fight in the front lines? Seriously, the Allies and the Axis would have done anything to win both those wars. And that includes dropping an atomic bomb on two cities filled with civilians. That could have been you or I in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if we had been born a century ago in a different place. This problem is not just simply a good verses evil. Everybody is good sometimes and everybody has been down right cruel at some point.

Then my opponent brings up children and their rights. To that I say, do you even know what a concentration camp is? It's a camp where kids and adults were sent to be killed immediately or worked to death. Germany had many and how on earth were the Allies suppose to bust these people out of a security tight prison? Say the Allies didn't have any weapons, that would be pretty much impossible because Germany would certainly have not recognized the weapons ban. Maybe you should go sit in a trench on the front lines of a war for a good couple of years and we'll probably see a change in your ideals. After a good couple of years you'll probably be wishing the war to end in any way possible. Having weapons is better than being enslaved to the enemy am I right? I kind of like my freedom.

If everyone just dropped their weapons, the terrorists and criminals would rule the world. Banning weapons doesn't do any good because all you're doing is banning weapons from the hands of those who actually listen to the law. Those who don't listen to the law suddenly have a massive advantage over those who listen to it and that could result in terrorists popping up all over the world uncontested.
Debate Round No. 1
Imbster

Con

Well we best keep going on sorry to keep you waiting,if we must,we could end this quick.

One major flaw I probably had in this debate is the I fact generalized weapons so much from a simple knife to the great weapons of the skies. Nevertheless,There should be a backup counter. I believe I see your point dating back to the Christian vs Muslim War the Vatican was in great danger,the Pope being a peaceful man,sent ships out to war.
Now that you wanna talk about the probabilities of Past,Present and Future let us explore well. The earliest people of Earth,many theories on how they came about but that's not the topic here. If we take a loot at the accounts of the Bible,there was already an early sense of murder. Empires were built,men with spears were born. What if weapons stopped this early? Example:They realized understand,communication and good fellowship is what their people need. That's for you to explore.
Now you say I'm implementing banning weapons when that takes years to become a law. I'm saying we don't need weapons. That the cons of having a gun in your hand is heavier than the pros. Let's take a look at some recent events. The Orlando Shooting. He wasn't much of a terrorist. He had a gun and used it because of his beliefs. 50+ people victimized. Unarmed people killed by just one man who had a weapon. North Korea's ballistic missile failed shortly. How much cash is that?! There's so much natural resources on this earth what do we use it for?
If I sat in a bench during war I'd wait til I get shot. What's the use of being alive? I'm just looking at the conditions of the world worsening. Sometimes the law is unfair on us,evil is driven by power, prosperity and vengeance. If my whole family died because of the government and we did nothing wrong I'd probably rebel too. I believe some criminals just need the right education and the right mindset so they can live among us once again or are we so judgemental we get scared of a changed man? By now I believe most of us know the deep dark web. If something like that exists then the people under it's influence cannot be saved anymore. The stories are far disturbing than robbing Walmart.
Lastly my final defense. I am a Filipino. Our dear president uses weapons to eliminate drugs ans criminals. It's not hypocritical cause I'm not him. As much as everyone in the country appreciates his charisma and keeping his promises. People are still dying. I don't even know if we're about to wage war against China. The future of people my age lies in the hands of the world leaders. I believe and stand that there is a way to live without weapons in the future because I fear worse events.
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

My opponent says that weapons shouldn't have been made many thousands of years ago and if they hadn't had been made back then, we would have weapons today. This is obviously not true. We would have discovered how to make weapons at some point which we did. And to suddenly stop making weapons would be absolutely ridiculous. Even if way back then all the kingdoms of old mad a pact not to make weapons, that's just like making a law to ban weapons. Criminals wouldn't listen and then criminals would rule the world already.

Then my opponent brings up the fact of the Orlando shooting. So you really think that this shooting would not have been as bad if people didn't have weapons. Let me remind you, if no weapons become the law, criminals won't listen to and police won't have weapons. So where does that leave us? The police wouldn't have been able to blast through the wall because that would have been considered a weapon. The police wouldn't have guns so a whole lot of them would have gotten slaughtered. In the end, if we ban weapons based on the fact that we don't need them, more people will be vulnerable to attacks like the Orlando shooting. More people will get hurt and die.

I'll try to sum up my opponents next point. He says that the world is worsening and is trying to blame it on weapons. Also he says that criminals just need to be understood. Remember when I said you can't fight fire with a cup of water? Think of it like this. A country is sending missiles towards your country and they've already launched. What are you going to do? Try and take a diplomatic approach to this, which is what my opponent insists. Or will you send you own missiles to intercept the ones heading to you country and save millions of lives. You see what I mean. You can't fight fire with a cup of water. Then my opponent says that criminals are misunderstood. Well that's great, try convincing more than a billion people that they should allow terrorists to be their next door neighbours.

Then my opponent uses the example that even though weapons are being used for a good cause, innocent people are still dying. My opponent goes on to say that his country may be going to war with China (good luck, you'll need it if you do) and that his life lies in the hands of world leaders. The problem is right now and current. There is no point in wishing for what could have happened because it didn't. We have weapons and now we have to face the consequences. If things had turned out a different way and countries weren't creating bomb that could destroy whole countries, I would be on your side. But things like those are happening and in a world where a single bomb can destroy a whole city our only hope is to create weapons that can counterattack that.
Debate Round No. 2
Imbster

Con

Well I can't say my opponent fails to make really good points. Then again there's still a few more rounds. Don't think I'm out of. bullets yet. Last bullet for round 4 will probably be absurd.

Again I've generalized weapons too much in the first place I best be careful. Counterattack is a good point. As an atheist,im not gonna use the 5th commandment cause that was 2,000 years ago. Now then regarding missiles the UN has made a law on that ans even testing is not permitted because it violates the sanctions. Either the whole UN wages war on one country or few countries,division happens again leading to world war 3.
For your great concern with criminals and terrorists again,final bullet goes to round 4.
Well I'm giving most of this round to you to say something long and further prove your point and weaken mine.
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

I will use this round to strengthen my debate. Diplomacy is what my opponent implies instead of using weapons. So you really think we can talk a deal with terrorists without falling on the short end of the deal? You really think you could have changed a Germanys view on Jews just by talking to them? It's hard enough to get even a couple people to change their minds let alone a whole country.

Then my opponent says that weapons will lead to world war three. Weapons will not be the cause of world war three I say. It'll probably be a power argument between two powerful countries. If a weapons ban happens in the whole world, nobody's going to listen to it. Our best chance at staying alive is to defend ourselves with weapons. Like I said before you can't fight fire with a cup of water. Talking to an atomic bomb isn't going to stop it from exploding when its already been detonated.

Banning weapons will only take away weapons from those who protect people. Criminals don't care about laws, terrorists don't care about laws, in a world war people don't really care about laws like that.
Debate Round No. 3
Imbster

Con

Well time for the final bullet. I have something in mind for round 5.

The absurd bullet:
You are very well concerned with criminals,terrorist and men with great power. I see the point of our dear president. There is too much drugs in our country. The children are taking drugs which is why he needs to kill the drug pushers,drug dealers and drug lords and bring those who surrender to rehabilitation. If I seem like implementing eradicating every criminal,terrorist,corrupt leader,rebels of the law then I actually am. Your so concerned with criminals and etc. Let's explore what if we eliminate your concerns. How does 'we don't weapons'sound like now?
Look at us. Living in fear. Anything negative can happen. Bombs can blow my house can get raided the red alert button could be pressed now who or what is the main factor of all this fear? It's still us humans. I am implementing superb discipline as a final proposal. How will the system operate if there are clogs?for about 3 rounds I have been positive. Now is to shoot the worst opinion. I don't think anyone will bear the thought future generations suffering(unless you ars psychotic and take joy in the death of creation;FNAF reference). Not every one of us has a goal of working together and helping each other economically improve. After all this done,people with serious attachments that harm others gone. Then we can live without weapons. We either destroy them or stash them somewhere BUT as I've seen your point hide some blueprints on how to build them very very far away from any human. What about knives huh,hammers and chainsaws?maybe people will go back to bow and arrow slingshot. Well eliminate whoever uses it for wrong. Probably about hundreds of years weapons develop again at least I tried.
Everyone will be given the right education nobody is gonna treat someone so bad they'll become a criminal we stick with one philosophy to work together and help each other. Final bullet shot. I end my stand here and wish luck to whoever is the last man standing after all the bullets fired. I would like to use my 5th round instead to express a few things not related to the debate topic and to formally close it along with my opponent.
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

I see what my opponent is trying to say. We should kill every criminal on the earth and then we would have no need for weapons. Well that's just great for like maybe the first two weeks. People aren't born evil. They become evil. Criminals will be replaced by criminals and the justice system will be replaced by an instant death sentence. Weapons now a days are used for keeping order and creating chaos. We need weapons on both sides to keep the balance. Your whole point is based off of an "if" which makes it invalid.
Debate Round No. 4
Imbster

Con

There are many points based on "ifs"that made history.
Well look at the justice system,the rich criminal getting away?What kind of justice is that? Death sentence rids of humans who do not wish to contribute to society BUT takes from society instead whether lives,taxes or serious rape. It's easy to scold baby holding a knife is wrong but facing an adult you might die uttering those words. Again which is why I present right education. It doesn't mean teach them math,history or science,it means teach simple things. heads before they reach complex thought. Example:teaching someone"you don't kill others to gain MONEY". If they ask why then why not give them a good interpretation. It never meant we are young we don't deserve answers about the biggest questions. I know some parents encourage crime,more than the child deserves detention,he has power to think things through and avoid basing his actions only on pure human emotion. Anyone can show a child how beautiful the world can be, Anyone can keep instilling negativity by always telling the child this is how the world works. Childhood is a very important stage,your darkest memories could change the whole you. It's always easier to stop a child from turning into a criminal than to turn the criminal to an innocent child. There is a possible future for the current justice system,there is also a possible future for the death sentence. I believe we are in a very modern generation now,critical thinking does not only touch the adults but people like me. Though I can safely say most are still addicted to games and media and only develop care for their own small 'world' So I guess this finally formally ends. My name is Imbree Maestre and I am against 'We need weapons'.

Probably made a lot of mistakes but that was fun. Well this was my 1st debate. Thanks to my opponent,did really well.
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

It doesn't matter if history was made by a lot of "ifs". "Ifs" mean decisions and this is a debate. "Ifs" are undecided and debates are where points need to be decided and absolute. Otherwise the point is futile.

So now my opponent is advocating that not only should we kill every criminal in the world but we should also teach children why its bad to steal money, etc. So say supposedly that a child who is homeless steals some food. Stealing is against the law so we should just kill the child is what my opponent implies. What if we lived under a dictatorship that was unjust and cruel. People will fight for their freedom, is that wrong? It's against the dictators law so should we rat out the freedom fighters and kill them all? You're probably starting to see the problem with killing every criminal in this world. Good people sometimes are forced to do bad things because of situations. Good people sometimes break the law because they feel that morally what is happening is wrong. Should they be killed for it? Hiding Jews in World War Two was seen as wrong in the Germans point of view. Does that mean that your advocating that everyone who hid Jews should have been put to death? I could go on but you probably get my point by now.

As for teaching children good morales from the beginning, we already do that. Does that mean that they listen? No. We do educate people on what is right and what is wrong. Does that mean they listen? No. No matter how much you try to educate people on what's right and wrong, their still going to commit what would be considered wrong at least once in their lifetime. Education will not stop criminals from popping up all over the place.

We need weapons. We may have needed them for hunting once upon a time but now we need them to defend ourselves. There is no being diplomatic to a bomb that's already been dropped. There's no point in trying to talk it out to a murderer who's intent on killing you. We need weapons to protect ourselves and banning them will not make them go away. Like I said before, you cannot fight a raging fire with a cup of water.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Imbster 10 months ago
Imbster
Oh that makes things understandable. I knew there was something our history teacher don't mention.
Posted by Foxian 10 months ago
Foxian
The artificial islands are being built to give leverage in favor of China. You realize that all the Nansha Qundao (Spratly Islands) were never for the Philippines to sell to begin with, correct? Disregarding historical claims and focusing on claims within the last century, our government claimed the islands when it was declared our borders in 1949, which is before the Philippines claimed a single island. Also, at the ratification of the United Nation Ocean and Sea Laws, China declared that it reaffirms sovereignty of all territory in article two of our constitution, which include the islands.
Posted by Imbster 10 months ago
Imbster
Pray this debate will be tied hahahaha you're really good having no losses yet...
Posted by HeavenlyPanda 10 months ago
HeavenlyPanda
Pray its not trump. He'll probably try and deport all phillipeans from America for bothering him. Or he'll try to take the islands for himself.
Posted by Imbster 10 months ago
Imbster
Well there's gonna be a new president either Trump or Clinton. Either our president flirts his way to a good relationship,or he helps Trump build a wall. Concerning China,hmm Japan made noodles,China made siopao. I guess we loss the right to cook that. Lmao.
Posted by HeavenlyPanda 10 months ago
HeavenlyPanda
You're lucky you have the US on your side. Otherwise China could just take it by force. I mean if China was a real jerk about it, they could cut all manufacturing that comes from them to the philipeans. Not sure if that would do much though.
Posted by Imbster 10 months ago
Imbster
I understand that China is overpopulated and you need a lot food. Though,why use territory to build artificial islands. How does artificial island even look like...it sounds robotic. The only way that China really owns this Shoal,is if our former president Aquino sold the territory to China. Other than that I know you have historic claims,but really it just recently happened. You could've done this years ago so it took you long to discover historic claims? Possibly during the time China came here and introduced business and food they're already building islands. UN wasn't made yet.
Posted by Foxian 10 months ago
Foxian
No, if two countries are extremely friendly they are more likely to offer support, but as long as there are no official agreement that state they need to then they may not. The support they offer can be soldiers or just supplies, it just depends. In the case of a country being very friendly with both countries that go to war and there is no way to stay neutral then they would choose the country that benefits them the most in the long-run, most likely.
Posted by HeavenlyPanda 10 months ago
HeavenlyPanda
So if the United States was involved in a war if it got to a war would that mean that every ally of both countries would have to be dragged into the war? What if one country was allies with the US and China. Which would they choose to support?
Posted by Foxian 10 months ago
Foxian
Militarily, China would lose in almost every scenario assuming the war is happening with current strengths. If nuclear weapons are used then China would never win, if nuclear weapons weren't then China could beat the United States in the event of the United States invading China, but not in the event of China invading the United States. Those scenarios are very superficial though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.