Debate Rounds (2)
Bear attacks are incredibly rare and pretty much never unprovoked. Carrying a gun with you to protect against bears is not really that fair to bears, because if I had a gun with me and saw a bear, I'd probably shoot the bear out of fear as soon as it got to close (as I assume many people would), though this article states bears are just curious. There are many, many ways to protect yourself against bears without killing them. Let's be nice to bears. Instead of stomping through the forest ready to cap some grizzlies, read the article buddy, and all your hikes shall forever be safe and bear-murder free. Now, I will admit your best point was the story of the women and her children. However, I have a story to prove MY point as well. It's called the Columbine High School Massacre. Or the Virginia Tech Massacre. Or tons of other school shootings, all of which occur because an angsty teenager finds a way to get a gun and goes to town with it. There are just too many stupid/unstable people in the world to allow guns to be given out to the public. If any of the kids who performed these school shootings had come in with knives instead, they would've been stopped much more easily and quickly, causing far less destruction and death. If that lady didn't have a gun, yeah, she would've gotten some stuff stolen. But if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold DIDN'T have a gun, 34 students and teachers would've been left unharmed! How can you argue with that? You can tell stories about guns as self defense all day, but there are just as many stories for why guns are bad. So to sum up my points: A. Guns are not drugs, having an illegal firearm market would be MUCH harder to pull off, one cannot just assume it will happen for sure (you said "the same thing will happen with guns", which you have no proof for by the way). B. Be nice to bears. C. There will always be violence in this world; we can't stop that. However, we can lower it by preventing the use of guns. Thank you, I eagerly await your response.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to PRO for CON's bit of sarcasm at the beginning of his R1. CON assumes that by cutting off manufacturing of weapons, all arms will cease to exist. If only PRO had more time, I would've loved to hear arguments about police corruption, government scandals (*cough Fast and Furious), and other ways that arms can end up in the hands of criminals. The illegal market argument was simple enough for me, and there really wasn't any reasoning on the part of the CON in that rebuttal.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.