The Instigator
wierdman
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Grape
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

should the United States government allow concealed guns within campus (college)

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,299 times Debate No: 15651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

wierdman

Con

i will be arguing that the United States government should not allow guns in college campuses.

Round one: intro
Round two: main round
Round three:cross examination/ additional info/ question
Round four: answers
Round five: conclusion
Grape

Pro

My position is that colleges should determine the rules for carrying weapons on their campuses and the government should not be involved. The government does not have the moral authority to impose its rules on others. I am speaking of private colleges of course, I do not believe public universities should exist at all.
Debate Round No. 1
wierdman

Con

wierdman forfeited this round.
Grape

Pro

I'm still waiting for my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 2
wierdman

Con

thank you for accepting this debate topic.
i would like to start by combining round two and three together as well as round four and five for a total of three rounds.

===Argument===
when it comes to the issue of concealed weapons whitin college campus, it is quite clear that the United states "States government" simply cannot afford to take any chances. This issue deals whit the safety of students in the United States.

-Contention One- "mental growth and stability.
when it comes to college students, it is clear that they simply cannot be trusted. history has showed us continually that these student who are supposed to be in the most stable environment are actually not simply due there reckless behaviors. we must also look to many statistics such as that of the oldmtree which stated:

" Death: 1,700 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes.

���‚��� Injury: 599,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol.

���‚��� Assault: More than 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.

���‚��� Academic Problems: About 25 percent of college students report academic consequences of their drinking .

���‚��� Drunk Driving: 2.1 million students between the ages of 18 and 24 drove under the influence of alcohol last year .

���‚��� Vandalism: About 11 percent of college student drinkers report that they have damaged property while under the influence of alcohol.
(http://www.oldelmtree.com...)

Contention two--safety of students and faculties.

perhaps the most bizarre claim when it comes to the topic of concealed guns within college is that it allows students to protect themselves, however; according to a feb 27th 2011 nytimes article "we are proving them with a potential to start a campus shooting". with this been said we must also look into the fact that the United States federal government as well as state government has an obligation to protect the citizens and when it comes to this issue, it seems like the only reasonable decision is to decline te ownership of concealed guns within school grounds.

finally we must look at the alternatives, history has made it self clear, we simply can not post a sticker that says "Gun free zone". we must look at the fact that we must also place stricter laws to back this decisions up.
Grape

Pro

As stated above, my argument is that it should be the responsibility of college administrations to determine whether or not guns ought to be allowed on campuses and to what extent they should be prohibited. No one else has any right to intervene in that regard.

C1: Property Ownership

The college is the user and owner of the campus, and as the owner of the property the college has the right to establish what consenting parties may and may not do. This includes either permitting or forbidding the possession of firearms. If someone else intervenes and orders the college to use the property in such a certain way, than that is a violation of their property rights. People who do not use the campus, did not use resources in acquiring it, and are in no way connected to the business of the college cannot justifiably force them to adopt a certain policy. The college will set it's policies on gun use in accordance to what it feels is best, which will probably involve strict restrictions. The force of the law is not necessarily when the same decision can be made (or not made as the case may be) through voluntary action.

CA1. Mental Growth and Stability

It is immoral to impose rules on people on the basis that they might do something wrong. A person can always do something wrong until he is shackled up and kept in a cage. Attempts to draw arbitrary boundaries based on subjective risk assessment are unacceptable: it is still the use of force to restrain the freedom of a person who as done nothing wrong.

It is also interesting to note that Con says that college students are untrustworthy and suggests we place our trust in the hands of the state. The United States government has a record on war crimes that would be difficult to match with irresponsible gun ownership [1], and this is to discount the slaughter of innocents that is perversely accepted as morally valid in war.

Drunken gun accidents can be prevented by the voluntary establishment of weapons restrictions by colleges. The law is not necessary. If colleges do not make these restrictions than the risks are accepted by everyone involved and there is no need or moral justification to restrict the freedom of people to put themselves in risky situations.

CA2. Safety

Once again, the law is not necessary to bring this about and voluntary action is morally preferable. Colleges have private rules and private security, they do not need to be unilaterally forced by the violence of the state to make safer policies.

Conclusion:

Con's argument is based on bare assertionism and the assumption that violence is always the solution to violence. Colleges are run by responsible people and they do not need to be coerced into making safer policies. Con just assumes that the solution to every problem is to expand the power of the government and restrict the freedom of individuals. This approach is morally unacceptable when a problem can be dealt with through free and voluntary action.

Sources:

[1] http://www.commondreams.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I'd cancel Darkhearth's multi-account vote, but J.Kenyon also did a vote bomb.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
wierdmanGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 5 years ago
darkhearth
wierdmanGrapeTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: j.kenyon votebombing
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
wierdmanGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
wierdmanGrapeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: .