The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

weapons should be banned in our world

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 910 times Debate No: 40708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




The technology of our world is growing day by day.As the technology grows the weapons that is created becomes more and more disastrous and destructive.Today in our world almost all the destruction are caused by these weapons which are being deadly day by day.We may have heard about the harms caused by world wars which have lead to the death of many people.The main and the only reason for this is the use of these weapons in these world wars such as nuclear bombs.Some of the side effects of these are...........
These are some of the many disadvantages of weapons.All these shows the necessity of removing these weapons from our world.By doing it may help to make our world a better one.So my opinion is that we should create a world with no use of weapons that is it should be removed from our world......


Your argument seems to be based on the presupposition that weapons are the cause of "evil" or, as you said, "destruction" in the world. I would like to submit the idea that humans are the cause of destruction in the world. If this is true, then no amount of weapons banning will stop people form destroying each other.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes the people are the reason for self destruction in the world.But let me ask can these people cause destruction without using weapons?Can these people make destruction by fist fighting with each other?Never.So this is where the weapons come in.If a man start using weapons then that person would surely have a craze to use the deadliest weapons of the world.So the aftereffect is a wide damage to our world.These people would see the killing as a fantasy and this is how an ordinary person changes into a terrorist.So these weapons not only destroy the world but also the humanity of each persons.
So from the following link we can find out that the terrorists use the deadly weapons.What can these people do without weapons?Can the bring mass destruction??????

And from all this we can finally conclude that weapons which are a source of great destruction should be moved from our world.............


A) I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the fact that terrorists use very deadly weapons to do get their way. But the question is, is it the weapon that makes the Terrorist? By definition a terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." And terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Therefore a terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political (governmental) aims. There is no mention of weapons anywhere in this definition. It's violence that makes a terrorist, not weapons.

B) Fists can be quite painful and destructive.

C) Simply banning something does not make it disappear. One example of this is the attempt in America to ban alcohol back in the early 1900's. Alcohol did the exact opposite of disappearing during this time. By banning weapons throughout the world, you would merely leave the world defenseless against those who would not follow this ban.
Debate Round No. 2


A) I am not saying about the definition of terrorists and about all the terrorists.I am saying about the ones who became so with the influence of weapons.Today the children around us play shooting games in their computers where these children would go on shooting people around them who they sees.So in reality when they get a weapon like a gun they would try to destroy or shoot all the people around them.These people take it as a fantasy.So here we can see that these weapons can sometimes make a person a terrorist.

B)Fists are painful and destructive but is it greater than weapons?

C)Simply banning does not make it disappear.But if banning does not take place it means that it support weapons.Banning something can prevent even someone from doing it.If one person does not use it a large destruction that can be caused by him also becomes in effective.For eg. the banning of poaching has made an effective reduce in it.So weapons should be banned.

I am thanking con for a good debate.


For a weapons banning to be truly effective, it would have to stop more destruction than it caused. Just stopping one act of terror does not make the ban completely effective. It seems that the ban would actually cause more destruction than it stopped because of the fact that the entire world would be unable to defend itself from those who ignored the ban.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume that the ban succeeded in removing all weapons of mass destruction from the world. Would you ban sticks and stones as well? Or, as mentioned before, fists? Because this is what terrorists (naturally violent people) would use to cause destruction. This may not seem like "mass destruction" but, now that you've banned their nukes, the very meaning of mass destruction has changed. It can no longer be defined by what does not exist, i. e. nukes and other kinds of deadly bombs. The definition is now based on the largest amount of destruction caused by sticks, stones and fists.

Great debate!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
I think Pro meant that biological weapons should be banned. He never said it, but that was the only thing in his first reference. References cannot be used to make arguments, only to support them. the debater must state the argument, then point to the reference as evidence for the argument. Pro didn't do that, so there was no argument against biological weapons in the debate, and Con legitimately assumed that Pro meant that all weapons should be banned.

The notion of banning all weapons assumes that some power is capable of enforcing the ban. If such a power is assumed to exist, why not just ban aggression? Enforcement is not plausible, so a ban is meaningless.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
@physicsmajor on what basis do objective moral values and duties exist?
Posted by Jebediah-Kerman 2 years ago
Personally, I play Halo, a gun game, and I safely handle fire arms. I don't go around killing other people crazily. In the instances that some people do do that, it is because of mental problems.
Posted by physicsmajor 2 years ago
You are daydreaming. Many misled persons do so. Nature sets an absolutely inviolate law, that any species that cannot or will not defend itself is doomed to extinction. Besides, that, it is ridiculous to think that no one ever built a zip gun in prison and that in our actual world, ruthless gun runners would not exploit a disarmed society immediately.
Daydream all you want, but your idea is not only wrong, it is needlessly dangerous and would place the meanest spirited barbarians in charge -- to remain forever -- by sheer force of arms
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to pro because he was the only one to use sources. Spelling and grammar to con because pro forgot to put spaces between sentences. Arguments also to con because the point he brings up about banning something does not mean it dissapears is a good point.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Although I agreed with Con before this debate. I would have to say that both debaters did a really great Job. I think Pro brought up some good points, but Con had I think a better rebuttal to banning guns.