The Instigator
IATDM
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lilcheerleader2001
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

should people be able to have guns

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 1 vote the winner is...
lilcheerleader2001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 31003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

IATDM

Pro

We should be able to use guns
lilcheerleader2001

Con

I do not think we should have guns. Guns are absolutely stupid. They kill so many people in this world. Students, teachers, parents, others.
Debate Round No. 1
IATDM

Pro

They can be used for protection and hunting, thats how some people eat
lilcheerleader2001

Con

Though, animals are slowly becoming endagered and extinct. Tigers, ducks, deer, and other animals don't deserve to be shot.
Debate Round No. 2
IATDM

Pro

Some animals a illegal to shoot like tigers, lions, and panthers so they dont go extinct
lilcheerleader2001

Con

Okay as my last piece of debate I will go as far as I can go. For this matter, you need a licence to hunt and those cost money. Guns Kill so many people. If we want to debate further, go to the comments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
IATDMlilcheerleader2001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "Guns kill people / Guns protect people" - Neither Pro nor Con provided any substantiation for these arguments nor did they challenge their opponents claims.. tie. "Hunting" - Con says it kills endangered animals, but Pro point out that's against the law.. tie. "Hunting II" - Pro says it allows people to eat vs. Con says that's immoral.. tie. Pro fails to meet the burden of proof, and thus Con wins arguments by default. If either side had cited any evidence to support their perspective, they would almost certainly have won.