Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TRW: Week 3

whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Intro

So, obviously, I'm not bluesteel. He said he was super busy this week, and asked if I could take over for him this time. Though it took a while to get through this one, I'm happy to oblige. I rather like this series, and I'm glad to contribute to it. Given the opportunity, I am actually going to do a debate of his.

We have a rather controversial debate this week, and this is the infamous debate between bluesteel and Mikal. That debate can be found here.

http://www.debate.org...

The topic was "The US should adopt a ban on assault weapons similar to Australia's"

Now, as many of you are aware, most of the votes on this were based on the public concession by Mikal, which was actually the reason I didn't end up voting on this in the first place. I won't be including those concession votes in this TRW, and instead I'll focus on those votes that appeared beforehand. At that time, there were 6 votes posted, with the score being 14-28 in favor of Mikal.

I'll post bluesteel's review of what makes a good RFD should do first:

(1) Evaluate all arguments. Dismissing any major argument made by either side without discussion is the mark of a bad RFD.

(2) Conclude by weighing all offense presented, after mitigating it with all defense presented.

(3) Read contested sources.

(4) Credit dropped arguments.

(5) Not make up its own BOPs or arguments or otherwise reference things that were not said in the debate.

My RFD:

Let me be clear: this was a really good debate with many solid points made by both sides. I'll be rather harsh going through it, but there were plenty of good arguments to go around, and both debaters put in a solid effort (no surprise, given their histories). That makes it all the more depressing to see how things went after the fact, and I personally think this debate should get more positive attention. It's a worthwhile read.

I'll start by pointing out that I wasn't really swayed with regards to classifications meeting the resolution. Pro wasn't required to follow the Australian model to the letter, and I think he sufficiently explained why each piece of his plan text applies directly to assault weapons, making his case topical. I think this line of argumentation just detracted from the debate, to be honest.

But let's get into the debate proper.

There were a tremendous number of individual studies presented, and I won't go through every single one. Instead, I'd like to focus on the broader points of each debater's case, and determine how well it flows through the debate and what it means to the debate at large.

Pro's Case:

1) Mass shootings

This is one argument that I feel sits firmly in Pro's corner. The fact that Con makes no direct response to this point is problematic, though it does get argued elsewhere in the debate, so I'll address those points.

Death tolls/crime don't decrease

I'll address this more on the points themselves, but this argument tells me that, though mass shootings may disappear, they will simply be replaced by other violent crimes. I buy that there's not really a large effect here (though there's uncertainty here, since a lot of Con's studies refer to crime in general rather than violent crime, and the death toll differences are unclear), but it seems the main point Pro is going for (i.e. the impact of mass shootings on the public) goes basically uncontested. Con argues that this is an appeal to emotion, but it's not. This argument is a basic evaluation of how the public perceives each mass shooting and mass shootings collectively. I would have liked Pro to expand on this and talk about the broader effects of a nervous populous and the effects of many mass shootings in countries like the U.S., but I nonetheless buy that this is an important consideration. That's the main thing coming through at the end of the debate from this position, as it doesn't seem that there are many lives saved even if I'm buying Pro's perception on that end, though I do appreciate the substantial logic Pro places behind that point.

2) Homicide rates

This one gets more cross application from Con's case, though again, it goes directly uncontested. This is a problem, because Pro gives me some analysis here that really doesn't get addressed. Specifically, I see him referring to circumstances where high capacity magazines are required to do substantial damage, such as drive-by shootings, that aren't getting any response. I'm not sure I buy Pro's 2,850 lives figure on that basis alone because Con does give me analysis on the overall homicide rate that makes me question whether it can possibly be so obvious (more on that later), but I am buying a reduction in homicides from incidents such as these. Again, I'd have liked to see more on the psychological effects here, specifically how it would change the situation in many inner cities due to altering the capacity of gangs to commit widespread violence, but I'm still giving Pro some ground on saving some lives, however minimally

3) Mexican cartels

Of all of Pro's case, this is the strongest, not because it's the best argued, but because it's cold dropped. Con tries in the last round to cross apply his argument regarding black markets to this point, but a) it's too late to do that (this was a 5 round debate, and this is the first time the words "Mexican Cartels" appear in Con's arguments anywhere, and b) it's not enough. I'll get more into the black market argument later on Con's case, but much of Pro's analysis here just goes straight dropped, where he shows specifically why these weapons are more dangerous, and that substitutions won't be enough to make them nearly as dangerous. I'm not sure what these "other, more obscure, sources" are that they would acquire their weapons from, but I have a hard time believing they will be as readily available as they are here. And, given the buyback, banning does mean the availability dramatically drops. Perhaps there is another country nearby that can supply them tremendously, but I need to see more than a nebulous, uncertain assertion to believe that.

So this becomes the major win of Pro's case, because I'm buying that a substantial number of people lost to cartels (of the 17,000 per year) are going to survive. I buy that border cities will be safer, and that police and border officials will be able to outgun these criminal organizations. Again, I think the impact could have been broadened to larger effects of cartels in the U.S. and Mexico, but the point is made well enough that this becomes a huge deal.

Con's Case:

Overview:

There's a lot to cover here, so I'm going to be splitting the arguments provided by Con into two categories: defense and offense. You'll note that there's a lot more defense going on here and very little offense. That's a large part of the problem with Con's case " I don't feel like he gets to substantial impacts in many places, and spends the majority of his time just trying to erase Pro's. That's not really a winning strategy, because it forces you to win every point in order to come out on top.

Defense:

1) All country comparisons

I'm lumping these together, because while these are a very broad set of points, they all come under the same basic idea. Whether it's Australia or Europe, these are meant to reveal faults in the effectiveness of gun bans, and reveal substantial holes in Pro's analysis.

In both cases, Pro effectively shows that these countries do have a fewer mass shootings. I think Con's taking some major liberties calling a 2-death and 1-death shooting a mass shooting, but even if I considered them that way, they're still causing far less damage than all the mass shootings you both discuss in the U.S., and therefore both their physical and perceptual impact is less.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:47:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Europe is effectively dismissed by both debaters towards the end of the debate, so I'm not going to discuss it in totality here, especially as I agree with Pro that not all countries under that analysis instituted gun bans, thus reducing the viability of such a comparison.

On both the English and Australian examples, I think Con effectively showed that their bans have met with problems, allowing much of the same problems to revert (though I'm not buy that that's the case across the board). The negative impacts are less clear here, so at most, I'd be buying the similar bans in these nations haven't yielded fruit. But then Pro does the comparison between his policy and theirs, pointing to deficits in how their ban was executed and arguing that his policy would fill those gaps. To a certain extent, the responses from Con ameliorate this argument by telling me that all these bans would still not be totally effective, but Pro still manages to show that his policy would improve on theirs and therefore not suffer from many of the same concerns.

2) Replacement

This becomes a major point for Con " that people will simply shift weapons and utilize those that are legally available to them. I completely buy this, and I don't think Pro ever really disagrees with it, even saying at one point that those who like guns aren't going to be deterred from gun ownership by a ban of some guns. The question becomes: does the replacement high capacity magazines and assault weapons in general inherently reduce their capacity to inflict harm? That's coming up under the next point.

3) "Overall" crime and death tolls

This is probably the largest argument of the debate, and it becomes a war of statistics mainly with some evaluation of the logical effect of a ban from both sides. As Con's statistics seem to more broadly address the question of overall crime and death tolls, I'm inclined to agree with his sources on the whole here. I think he effectively showed that the overall statistics don't tell a very convincing story of effect on homicides or crime rates as a whole.

However, there's a real question of whether those statistics are telling the full story. Pro's logic on this seems more solid: if all that's left to these people is low capacity and slow fire rate weapons, each individual shootings becomes less damaging. He shows me that, while it's the pistols that often do the killing in each individual instance, shooters often seem reliant on at least carrying, if not actively using, deadlier weapons. Con even admits that they're used less often in countries where such bans are implemented, he just says it makes no difference. Pro points to several examples of shootings that were made deadlier for their usage, so at least in individual instances, I can see a straightforward benefit. I also buy that the buyback is an important aspect here, reducing the number of available high capacity magazines and effectively forcing shooters to choose from a range of less effective means. That has an effect on deterrence and defense, which I'll get to shortly, but here it really makes me question why I should expect, in the U.S. following this specific policy, an increase in crime or death tolls. That's not to mention that I feel Pro effectively shows that firearm homicides drop, as do firearm suicides, the latter of which doesn't get addressed by Con, and the former seems to stand as true, even if it means some other methods are responsible for causing deaths (never really get those).

Ultimately, though it's a close contest here, I end up siding with Pro. The issues with discrepancies between how Australia and England do their policies and how Pro is planning to implement his at least leave me uncertain as to the usefulness of those studies, and since Pro is showing me several means by which the situation is improved above and beyond their efforts, his case holds more weight in this regard. Uncertainty favors him here, though not greatly.

Offense:

1) Deterrence/Defense

I know " it's quixotic that the first point under offense is "defense," but this is actually a big point of offense, though it's not used as effectively as it could have been. Con's argument is that the presence of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens functions as a method to deter dangerous people from attacking others, invading homes, etc., and that should they decide to do so, these people should be outfitted to defend themselves in order to ensure that their lives are preserved.

The basic problem here is that I don't get a response to Pro's point that handguns are just as effective for both deterrence and defense. I can actually think of some decent reasons why each can be enhanced by leaving these guns and high capacity magazines legal, and some of them are even present in Pro's opening round (chances of missing, reload times). This is often a bit of cognitive dissonance I see in these kinds of debates: certain guns are exceedingly dangerous when someone is attacking, but shouldn't be used on defense because other guns are just as good. I don't quite understand that argument, because if a pistol is good enough for defense against pretty much any weapon, why isn't it just as effective in attacking someone? Nonetheless, I don't see Con showcasing this bit of illogic, and he seems to buy into it himself in the reverse fashion, so, with the argument that handguns can both prevent and stop crimes in action left alone, I dismiss this point.

2) Black market

This is probably the most confounding part of Con's case, mainly because I feel it's one of his best sources of offense and it doesn't get the powerful responses I expected Pro to provide. And the he drops it... for 3 rounds. Seriously, no mention of black markets in R3 or R4. Pro's responses are entirely reliant on higher severity of punishment solving and less availability, but the former seems like a really simple argument to respond to (basic anti-death penalty analysis) and the latter has some easy holes to access (e.g..other sources, homemade guns, etc.). Instead of providing them, however, Con just lets the point drop, and then tries to pick it back up again in the final round to no avail. It makes the point seem incredibly weak that he doesn't even try to support it, and since I never get responses to either of these two points, I'm forced to accept Pro's logic that a black market either won't exist or will be so minimal as to be exceedingly unimportant. I think it's a very big missed opportunity.

3) Violent response

This starts out as a response to the nonexistent problem of grandfathering in guns that are currently in private hands. I dismiss that portion as unimportant, and simply move onto how the position developed.

Before I get into it, though, I'd like to note that the bulk of this argument's offense really only starts up in R4. Before that, this is mainly defense, with Con arguing that the buyback wouldn't be effective. I'd say that criminalizing something with large penalties tends to have some effect, so there's really no doubt that the buyback would be effective, it's just a question of HOW effective, and I don't get any piece of an argument regarding how to evaluate that effectiveness. Bringing up the number of sovereign citizens or U.S. militia groups would have helped with this " all I'm getting is an idea that there are number of individuals out there who are likely to have problems with it, not how many they are.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:49:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's the bit of offense on here that's interesting. People perceiving this as a violation of gun rights and standing up for them is a problem, and I can see where Con's going with this. Again, I don't get a clear idea of how widespread of a problem this is and how concerned I should be. I don't think citing that there's more guns in the U.S. really proves either that there's a lot more gun nuts out there, or that those gun gun nuts are more ardent than those in Australia, it's really only a piece of a much larger puzzle that Con needed to finish to flesh this out.

Still, I buy that these people, however many there are, will respond poorly. I would have liked to see Con spend some time explaining what that fully means, since confiscating their guns would literally be impossible without storming their houses and getting into multiple firefights. However, I do get the picture that there will be stand-offs (though Bundy Ranch may not be the best example, since it ended bloodlessly), and those could lead to violence. Intriguingly, Pro gives me a really solid mitigating response to this: that we don't necessarily have to push the issue with every single person. We can track their weapons, threaten them, even fine them, and then just let them keep them, since they don't have that large of an effect. There could have been some good responses to this point as well, but Con doesn't really take the time to respond to this. Yes, perception will still create problems, but I'm not sure of the gravity of those harms, especially if these nut jobs are still being allowed to keep their guns. Maybe the fines would make them go off their rockers and do something terrible, but I need to see that analysis, and I don't.

Conclusion:

So there's a lot to this debate, and I think both debaters did a really solid job arguing over much of this. If some of these closer arguments had been the major deciders of this debate, it would have taken me much longer to come to a decision, and I would have had to comb through every study to come to a conclusion. However, much of the defensive case presented by Con, which is where most of the clash takes place, just seems to take a backseat to the other issues by the end of the debate. Even among those, I get only a few clear points where each side is winning, and as such it makes my decision surprisingly straightforward.

The psychological effect of mass shootings, and the likely harms of marginally higher death tolls that result from them and general homicides as a result of high capacity magazines and assault weapons is probably the smaller of the impacts that pull through. I buy that they're important, but I don't get a clear idea of just how important beyond assertions that they matter because we spend to prevent such things when dealing with terrorism.

Next comes Con's blowback argument, which showcases a relatively certain problem of people being very, very upset and leading to confrontations. This is also never really quantified for me, but since it's a countrywide problem and it's giving a specific example that could, possibly, be repeated violently in a large number of places, I buy that it's a bigger problem.

But then I look at the cartel argument. Con tells me that those things that are certain should get my full attention, and the lack of response to this makes it glaringly obvious that this will happen. I get quantification for this, in large amounts, as well as specific peoples who are affected. While this could have been impacted better, it is by far the clearest impact among these three, and the largest.

Generally, I feel like the biggest missing piece is a discussion of the cost impact, something Con doesn't go for at all, which leads me to believe that the harms of implementation on that end is negligible. I'll always prefer the straightforward lives lost calculation when I'm given no cost analysis, so that's what I'm left to do here.

As such, I vote Pro.

Alright, now that that's out of the way, onto the other RFDs:

1) BLAHthedebator [voted for Mikal]

Con proved that his "ineffective" argument tackled almost every single contention Pro made, since to effectively debate the Pro side you must advocate for the positive effects of assault weapon bans similar to Australia's. Pro tries to refute this argument by showing it has been effective for Western Europe, and how Con's source doesn't show that Western Europe has mass-shootings deadlier and more common that the US, but unfortunately that doesn't guarantee effectiveness in the US, nor Australia. Thus, that is irrelevant to this debate. Also, Pro tries to refute Con's refutation about selling assault weapons on the black market by restating his argument about the proposal of harsher rules, but that still won't completely prohibit the selling of these weapons. People break the law regardless. Con refutes this by using Pro's OWN charts to prove that neither the 1996 buyback nor the 2002/2003 laws were responsible for any decrease in crime.
As for grandfathering, Pro states that grandfathering isn't relevant, but Con proves that it is relevant because the US is literally where gun ownership is a culture. He states to successfully do a buyback is impossible as it is ineffective, as well as making people feel as though their freedom was being taken away from them. Thus, "People would just keep their weapons, and then you would still have all the guns being grandfathered in."
He then goes on to state:
"This is not even considering that America has nearly 310 million guns in private ownership [3]. Australia only has around 3 million in private ownership [4]. This is nearly 100 times the amount of guns, and the same is true with other countries. We have far too many guns, and we have to much of a gun culture to expect a compulsory buyback to work properly."
Thus, Con has so far won his "ineffective" and "grandfathering" argument.
Finally the argument: What Are Assault Weapons? [I made this final since it seemed like a major argument]
Pro states that since every country has different categorizations as to which weapons are "assault weapons", he will be advocating for a ban on certain weapons which will be "similar" to Australia's. To me, his categorizations are very valid and logical, and it does not have any major flaws to it that would hinder the expected outcome. However, as Con points out, "The point I made about fists was not to be taken literally, but to show that if he is allowed to dictate the definition of what assault weapons are, he can alter it and move the goal posts in order to benefit his case," thus proving that it is unfair for Pro to put up his own categorization of assault weapons, and that it is for the government to decide what weapons belong in this category.
All in all, it seems shocking but I have to give this win to Con. He was able to prove Pro's points invalid, despite Pro building up an extremely strong case to advocate for a ban on assault weapons. I do have to applaud both sides for putting up such amazing arguments.
Well done!

This RFD seems to reward Con for the same things it disparages Pro for doing. Both Pro and Con use comparisons to other nations to determine the effectiveness of this policy, and yet the failure is placed squarely on Pro when they're not shown to be exactly equal. This is all the stranger since Con was actually more dependent on these examples showcasing ineffectiveness, whereas Pro's case was more focused on the differences and how they would improve on the models of countries like England and Australia. So if these comparisons were irrelevant, as he claims, then that would be more damaging to Con's case than Pro's.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
BLAH also seems to provide some responses to Pro's arguments regarding the black market, despite the fact that Con never gave them. Admittedly, some of these are cross-applications of other arguments Con made, but as both points Pro stated on black markets went uncontested, I think it's unreasonable to make that argument for him. He also ignores Pro's response to the buyback being ineffective, showing that it only has to be effective to a large degree, which Con never addressed. In fact, he seems to give a lot of weight to the black market issue that just isn't there, especially after Con dropped it for two rounds.

The explanation for why Pro didn't meet the resolution is perplexing. I've read through it a couple of times, and he didn't even really mention the reasoning for Pro's definition being abusive. Pro set the goalposts early and clarified them multiple times without changing them. Con seemed to be trying to preempt abuse where there was none with this argument, and I'm not sure how much that abuse matters to BLAH either.

But perhaps the most glaring problem with this RFD is just its lack of coverage. He allows Con to establish links between the two cases in the final round and uses that as a justification to ignore Pro's case wholesale. There's no mention of Mexican cartels, no effort to discuss deterrence or defense, and the overall crime and death tolls don't even get passing mention.

Overall, while this RFD does explain the perception of this voter, it seems to be highly biased. There's no obvious winning point provided for Con beyond maybe the abuse point, and he seems to just be giving Con the debate on the basis of mitigation alone.

2) 16kadams [voted for Mikal]

(1) Cartels: This was an interesting and compelling argument by bluesteel. He argued that a ban similar to that of Australia would reduce the amount of deaths related to the Mexican Drug Cartels. Mikal did have a light response to this last round. And Mikal's response of substitution makes sense. However, I believe that only minimizes the amount of deaths, and there would be some (at least temporary) benefit in Mexico if we adopt a similar law. So I give this to bluesteel, although Mikal argues how in the long term death rates would stay the same. Though short term lives saved are still lives saved.
(2) Australia: A lot of the debate revolved around how gun control works in foreign countries, and whether or not those laws were applicable here. Both sides cite a lot of statistics. I will explain why Mikal's studies, overall, were more convincing. First, Mikal cited a study run by economists. Economists tend to use more rigorous techniques, and I give their results more weight than the simple time series data used throughout the debate (most of the graphs and Blue's arguments). Using basic time series data, there was a lot of data thrown around, without any control group. As Australia's laws were national, it is hard to get a control group. New Zealand, as Mikal argued, made sense, as it is culturally similar to Australia had had similar crime rates UNTIL the 1996 law. Australia's crime increased after the 1996 law, and crime fell *slower* after 2002 than it did in New Zealand. The slower decline is significant, as it indicates something (maybe the gun laws) were inhibiting the crime decline. Therefore, for basic time-series data as well as the rigorous research, I must give this argument to Mikal. In fact, the fact that Australia's law would be costly and not lower crime rates severely undercuts blue's case.
(3) Ban's in the UK: Blue argued that the UK did not clamp down on gun ownership. However, the fact that the legal stock of gun ownership has been decreasing after gun control laws indicates that their laws have been successful in reducing overall gun ownership rates. Mikal noted how the English crime trends are not exactly like that of the US, and presents a case that gun crimes may have increased due to England's strict laws. This point really wasn't driven home by either side. Though I do believe that it shows how gun controls have no effect on crime, or may slightly increase the crime rate.
(4) Firearms effect on crime: For Blue to win, he assumes that firearms have a net-negative on society. As MIkal argues, firearms can be bad: they can be used as an instrument for murder. But they have benefits: They can be used in defense and deter murders. The overall *net* effect, as Mikal argues, suggests that firearms do not affect the crime rate, and may decrease overall violence. Blue countered with concealed carry research showing an increase in assault (likely Donahue 2001 or ADZ 2012). Therefore, the brutalization effects may outweigh any benefits. However, Mikal noted how 3 other recent studies undercut this conclusion, and how that research is very flawed due to coding errors, flawed methodology, and biased crime models. Overall, this basic assumption swings in Mikal's favor.
(5) Mass shootings: Mass shootings as noted are only a very small fraction in the total amount of crime. Therefore, a reduction doesn't mean anything. Overall homicide rates do. Mikal demonstrates how overall homicide rates would either not change or may INCREASE if blue's policies are enacted. Again, this point leans to Blue, but both the substitution effect and overall violence tends to undercut the validity of this argument. Therefore, its impact on my decision was pretty small, as overall death rates matter more.
(6) 1994 ban: This is to see whether or not any type of ban would actually work in the US. Mikal cites a few studies: the 1990s Clinton study, the 2004 follow up study (long term effects), and Lott's book, and an op-ed using cross sectional data. Blue notes how the studies indicate how there were targeted decreases in crime. That is, AW's were used in crime less often. Mikal is quick to respond. Wanna guess what he said? Overall death rates. Every single study cited in the debate noted how the ban did NOT affect overall crime rates. In fact, Mikal presented cross-sectional evidence that they increased crime; something Blue was fast to criticize. Mikal countered with more time series data and updated comparisons, which again proved AW bans increase crime. Overall, this argument proves that any type of ban would either be difficult to enforce or that it would not affect crime. This goes to Mikal, and really harms blue's position.
(7) Inflammation: Blue dropped this. Goes to Mikal. This argument proves that the laws would not be applicable in the US. "few anti-government nutjobs" was pretty much blues response (copy and pasted it). Best argument 2015. Mikal wins this point.
(8) Definitions: tbh I didn't care about this. Mikal cited sources even using the more broad definitions, and as he noted how overall death rates are not effected by gun ownership, it doesn't matter what is included. I pretty much just ignored the semantics in my decision making process as it would be unimportant to either side. If it was a broad definition, Mikal still wins. If it is narrow, same result. So really this was irrelevant when compared to the arguments presented.
Conclusion:
Mikal noted how the beliefs of American's would make this law costly and impossible to enforce. Overall crime rates would be unaffected, and may even increase. Mikal wins the debate. Both sides argued very well, though. Good job guys!

As usual, 16k produces a thorough RFD addressing all of the points. However, I feel he gave short shrift to many of the points here.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:52:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not sure, for example, how the cartel argument is countered by overall death rates. I could see where Mikal could have made that argument, but it seems like 16k just cross-applied the argument, despite the lack of explanation. Cartels are a special issue in the U.S., not something that would come up under any of Con's statistics for other countries or even for the assault weapons ban that occurred before. It just seems like 16k is minimizing this argument with faulty cross-application. Stranger still, this doesn't make an appearance in 16k's conclusion, despite having a demonstrable effect on violent crime.

I'm not going to argue that the statistics fell in favor of either side, though I am concerned that 16k relies too heavily on the statistical data while ignoring much of the arguments that Pro provides for how his case differs from those being analyzed in these statistics, and thus makes the statistics of somewhat less importance. It seems that those arguments don't make an appearance in this RFD.

I am concerned that 16k seems to dismiss mass shootings. Pro does spend a substantial amount of time pointing out a) that gun bans have altered the violent crime landscape in both England and Australia by ending these mass shootings, and b) that mass shootings have an important psychological effect on the rest of the country. All of that is washed away in two sentences. It also seems to ignore much of the logic that Pro provided in his case for a reduction in homicides, again focusing solely on statistics. That focus on statistics also seems to blind 16k when it comes to the assault weapons ban of 1994, since he seems to assume that the effects of the 1994 ban, which have been extensively studied, will be mirrored in Pro's case, even though he argues that he's made substantial changes to aspects that left that law vulnerable.

16k also wrongly assumes that Pro dropped the inflammation argument. Admittedly, his responses were only mitigating, but most of those went dropped as well. I appreciated the inflammation point as well, but I don't think this argument is so solidly in Con's corner as this RFD would suggest.

Overall, this RFD does a nearly complete job going through the general arguments, but seems to slant based on those issues that the reader found most persuasive rather than objectively evaluating all of the arguments in the flow of the debate.

3) thett3 [voted for bluesteel]

Just saying: I didn't read anything about the definition of assault weapons past round 2. One of the biggest criticisms of banning "assault weapons" is that it's a deeply nebulous term and means only what the lawmaker defines it as. Bluesteel is the lawmaker.
I wish Mikal had made the argument about the US resisting the buyback more compellingly. A ban and confiscation of all semi automatic weapons would almost certainly lead to civil war or, at the very least, mass violent resistance. In the debate, I'm not given any reason to think that the US is different from Australia. Mikal says Australia *has* lower gun ownership than the US, but considering they implemented a sweeping gun ban I'm not shocked. Mikal kind of hits on this but not nearly enough for me to throw out the everything else and vote on that. So I have to grant that the ban would succeed in getting guns out of civilian hands when I also factor in the stringent penalties for gun transfers.
Mikal should've run constitutionality. It would be scary to do so against a 3L, but it's doubtful this policy would pass muster under 2nd amendment law, and I would seriously hope (although three strikes laws rulings give me doubt) that the courts would overturn as cruel and unusual a penalty of life imprisonment for selling a metal box with a spring.
Bluesteels entire case was dropped and extended--easy vote. The Mexico point alone can carry the day--Mexico has been begging us for years to enact stronger gun laws because most of the weapons the cartels use come from the US. THIS ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY DROPPED AND IS THE BIGGEST IN ROUND IMPACT BY FAR.
Most of the statistical arguments were a wash but there was one part that stood out which was the turn on Mikals argument regarding the 1994 ban. It showed that the banned worked for the guns it targeted. Since blue targets the most deadly guns, under this precedent less deaths would occur.
Pro vote

thett3 produces a relatively short yet constructive RFD, providing Con with feedback as he goes through. However, I don't feel he ever gets to most of the debate. There's good focus on inflammation and the Mexican cartel argument, agreeing with me that these are central issues to the debate as a whole, but seems to ignore the vast majority of the clash that occurred across the rest of the flow. While, admittedly, a lot of it was focused on statistics and that was a jumble to get through, there was a substantial amount of other points that could and should have gotten some attention here, and I especially think he should have spent time explaining why Con's arguments regarding larger trends of crime and death tolls don't apply. Also, it's worth giving Con some positive feedback here " while his argument for violent resistance wasn't altogether clear, it was potent and at least somewhat effective.

4) Emilrose [voted for Mikal]

Both presented strong cases but Con highlighted valid points on assault weapon bans not necessarily preventing criminals from accessing them and the potential for black market and underground dealing. Con also points out that in certain places with strict gun ownership (such as the U.K) crime has actually increased. As well as outlining counter-evidence for Pros case on Australia, with other information suggesting that crime levels aren't exactly attributed to its ban.

While this RFD does include some points explaining the vote some extent, it still wins *worst RFD of the week*. It covers the least of any of the RFDs provided here, only taking the time to lightly cover 3 issues, two of which were hotly contested. The black market argument, despite being dropped for most of the debate by Con and bearing dropped rebuttals throughout, is front and center for this voter. Emil also lends extra credence to the argument that crime may increase, something even Con admitted was uncertain and depended on the location being analyzed. She even seems to recognize this in her last line, saying "that crime levels aren't exactly attributed to its ban," yet this is the only piece of offense she mentions in this RFD beyond underground dealing, which is barely explained as a harm by Con. There's no mention of homicides, mass killings, cartels, inflammation, or the definitional debate, despite the fact that these all played substantial roles in the debate. She gives short shrift to both sides in a very complex debate, doing only the bare minimum to explain what issues were most important to her.

5) Raisor [voted for bluesteel]

Theory:
Bluesteel is miles ahead on theory. I don"t really care what was agreed to out-of-round. Any out of round agreements should be reflected in R1 rules or the wording of the Resolution. I have no way of resolving what may or may not have been said in a private PM. Bluesteel is winning that it is his prerogative to define the scope of his plan. He is also winning that existing legal use supports his interp- I looked at the Connecticut evidence when Mikal posted and the first thing I noticed was the inclusion of pistols and modifications/attachments to handguns. A large capacity magazine falls under the term "assault weapon."
This is sort of irrelevant to my decision, for reasons I"ll explain below.
Decision Overview:
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:53:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bluesteel provides 3 advantage scenerios, while Mikal"s main strategy is to provide defensive arguments and turn the crime scenario. From the outset this is a losing strategy. Even if the BOP weren"t shared (which I don"t think it should have been in this debate since Pro is advocating change of SQ), Bluesteel is a smart enough debater to do the impact calc to show why any risk of solvency warrants a Pro ballot. Even so I think bluesteel should have leaned a little harder into this analysis in his R4.
The main offense I see for Mikal are:
Crime turn - Mikal argues an AW ban causes more crime. I see only meager evidence supporting this claim, and Mikal is working at cross purposes by also arguing that various weapons bans have no overall effect on crime. This might have been a valid strategy if his overall goal was to win the point that AW bans will not DECREASE crime, but undercuts him if his goal is actually to prove that the ban will result in an increase in crime.
Statistics battles like these generally lend me to want to throw up my hands in frustration, but I am liable to grant Bluesteel that an AW ban will cause some reduction in crime. I think bluesteel succesfully turns the Australian crime rate evidence in his favor- Mikal is forced to argue that the crime trends don"t match the dates of legislation, which I view as a concession that they don"t increase crime. I think bulesteel is probably coming out of this argument a little bit ahead, but I am inclined to say the impact on overall crime is minor. Mikal certainly doesn"t get any traction on why I should vote FOR Con.
Public Unrest - In the second to last round Mikal drops in the argument that the public will revolt against a forced buyback. It would have been smarter to add this impact in earlier, though I think Mikal just jumped on this once bluesteel said the ATF would forcibly retrieve the weapons. I grant Mikal that there could be armed conflicts over this issue, but Mikal doesn"t do a good job quantifying this impact or giving me a sense of scale. Bluesteels main response is to say that this didn"t happen in Australia and the number of people who tried to resist with violence would be very small. I buy this argument- some people will probably resist having their guns taken but this will be a small number of people.
As far as I can tell, that is all I have to weigh against bluesteel"s impacts.
I only need to look at the cartel impact to outweigh Mikal. This point was largely ignored by Con- Con briefly argues Mexico will get the guns elsewhere, but Pro has evidence specifically linking US policy to an uptick in deaths on the Mexican border. Con has no evidence that Mexican cartels could offset the loss of a major supplier of weapons. I grant Pro this impact, we are looking at baseline 230 deaths per year.
Neither side notes this, but Con"s main solvency attack- that buyback won"t work- isn"t applicable to the cartel scenario.
On the cartel issue alone I have reason to vote Pro.
However, I also think Pro is hands down winning the mass shooting impact. Even if I granted Con all of his defense, there would still be SOME reduction in mass shootings. In the absence of reasons to retain AW"s, this sufficient ground to ban them.
Pro argues throughout the debate that the cost of the ban would be justified, despite Con mostly ignoring the issue. Con briefly says "the program will cost a lot" but Pro"s opening was very successful in buying lot of goodwill to spending money on the program. If there are no impacts to spending, no analysis form Con on how we should weigh spending versus saving lives, I am going to vote to save lives every time. I think this was a serious misstep on Con"s part. Con should have made a big deal of the cost tag, given some impact to it. That would have been an easy route to offense in this round.
I think this was a clear Pro win.

Raisor's RFD is one well worth reading. Of all of them (including mine), he best explains the reasoning behind accepting Pro's case as in keeping with the resolution, starting with a great explanation of how he views the theory debate. The rest of this RFD uses a word economy I wish I could emulate to explain his views on the major points in the debate, focusing on the same major issues of cartels and revolt. I think it's missing some explanation on the importance of mass shootings within the context of the debate. He even mentions the missing cost argumentation. Props to him for a great vote.

6) donald.keller [voted for Mikal]

[to be done later " don't have the time at the moment to give this my full attention]
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 1:59:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 1:52:17 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I'm not sure, for example, how the cartel argument is countered by overall death rates. I could see where Mikal could have made that argument, but it seems like 16k just cross-applied the argument, despite the lack of explanation. Cartels are a special issue in the U.S., not something that would come up under any of Con's statistics for other countries or even for the assault weapons ban that occurred before. It just seems like 16k is minimizing this argument with faulty cross-application. Stranger still, this doesn't make an appearance in 16k's conclusion, despite having a demonstrable effect on violent crime.

I'm not going to argue that the statistics fell in favor of either side, though I am concerned that 16k relies too heavily on the statistical data while ignoring much of the arguments that Pro provides for how his case differs from those being analyzed in these statistics, and thus makes the statistics of somewhat less importance. It seems that those arguments don't make an appearance in this RFD.

I am concerned that 16k seems to dismiss mass shootings. Pro does spend a substantial amount of time pointing out a) that gun bans have altered the violent crime landscape in both England and Australia by ending these mass shootings, and b) that mass shootings have an important psychological effect on the rest of the country. All of that is washed away in two sentences. It also seems to ignore much of the logic that Pro provided in his case for a reduction in homicides, again focusing solely on statistics. That focus on statistics also seems to blind 16k when it comes to the assault weapons ban of 1994, since he seems to assume that the effects of the 1994 ban, which have been extensively studied, will be mirrored in Pro's case, even though he argues that he's made substantial changes to aspects that left that law vulnerable.

16k also wrongly assumes that Pro dropped the inflammation argument. Admittedly, his responses were only mitigating, but most of those went dropped as well. I appreciated the inflammation point as well, but I don't think this argument is so solidly in Con's corner as this RFD would suggest.

Overall, this RFD does a nearly complete job going through the general arguments, but seems to slant based on those issues that the reader found most persuasive rather than objectively evaluating all of the arguments in the flow of the debate.

3) thett3 [voted for bluesteel]

Just saying: I didn't read anything about the definition of assault weapons past round 2. One of the biggest criticisms of banning "assault weapons" is that it's a deeply nebulous term and means only what the lawmaker defines it as. Bluesteel is the lawmaker.
I wish Mikal had made the argument about the US resisting the buyback more compellingly. A ban and confiscation of all semi automatic weapons would almost certainly lead to civil war or, at the very least, mass violent resistance. In the debate, I'm not given any reason to think that the US is different from Australia. Mikal says Australia *has* lower gun ownership than the US, but considering they implemented a sweeping gun ban I'm not shocked. Mikal kind of hits on this but not nearly enough for me to throw out the everything else and vote on that. So I have to grant that the ban would succeed in getting guns out of civilian hands when I also factor in the stringent penalties for gun transfers.
Mikal should've run constitutionality. It would be scary to do so against a 3L, but it's doubtful this policy would pass muster under 2nd amendment law, and I would seriously hope (although three strikes laws rulings give me doubt) that the courts would overturn as cruel and unusual a penalty of life imprisonment for selling a metal box with a spring.
Bluesteels entire case was dropped and extended--easy vote. The Mexico point alone can carry the day--Mexico has been begging us for years to enact stronger gun laws because most of the weapons the cartels use come from the US. THIS ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY DROPPED AND IS THE BIGGEST IN ROUND IMPACT BY FAR.
Most of the statistical arguments were a wash but there was one part that stood out which was the turn on Mikals argument regarding the 1994 ban. It showed that the banned worked for the guns it targeted. Since blue targets the most deadly guns, under this precedent less deaths would occur.
Pro vote

thett3 produces a relatively short yet constructive RFD, providing Con with feedback as he goes through. However, I don't feel he ever gets to most of the debate. There's good focus on inflammation and the Mexican cartel argument, agreeing with me that these are central issues to the debate as a whole, but seems to ignore the vast majority of the clash that occurred across the rest of the flow. While, admittedly, a lot of it was focused on statistics and that was a jumble to get through, there was a substantial amount of other points that could and should have gotten some attention here, and I especially think he should have spent time explaining why Con's arguments regarding larger trends of crime and death tolls don't apply. Also, it's worth giving Con some positive feedback here " while his argument for violent resistance wasn't altogether clear, it was potent and at least somewhat effective.

4) Emilrose [voted for Mikal]

Both presented strong cases but Con highlighted valid points on assault weapon bans not necessarily preventing criminals from accessing them and the potential for black market and underground dealing. Con also points out that in certain places with strict gun ownership (such as the U.K) crime has actually increased. As well as outlining counter-evidence for Pros case on Australia, with other information suggesting that crime levels aren't exactly attributed to its ban.

While this RFD does include some points explaining the vote some extent, it still wins *worst RFD of the week*

Like there's no other *bad* RFD's that are more worthy of that *win*. It may be brief [which isn't against any rules] but it does actually explain certain points.

It covers the least of any of the RFDs provided here, only taking the time to lightly cover 3 issues, two of which were hotly contested. The black market argument, despite being dropped for most of the debate by Con and bearing dropped rebuttals throughout, is front and center for this voter. Emil also lends extra credence to the argument that crime may increase, something even Con admitted was uncertain and depended on the location being analyzed. She even seems to recognize this in her last line, saying "that crime levels aren't exactly attributed to its ban," yet this is the only piece of offense she mentions in this RFD beyond underground dealing, which is barely explained as a harm by Con. There's no mention of homicides, mass killings, cartels, inflammation, or the definitional debate, despite the fact that these all played substantial roles in the debate. She gives short shrift to both sides in a very complex debate, doing only the bare minimum to explain what issues were most important to her.

5) Raisor [voted for bluesteel]

Theory:
Bluesteel is miles ahead on theory. I don"t really care what was agreed to out-of-round. Any out of round agreements should be reflected in R1 rules or the wording of the Resolution. I have no way of resolving what may or may not have been said in a private PM. Bluesteel is winning that it is his prerogative to define the scope of his plan. He is also winning that existing legal use supports his interp- I looked at the Connecticut evidence when Mikal posted and the first thing I noticed was the inclusion of pistols and modifications/attachments to handguns. A large capacity magazine falls under the term "assault weapon."
This is sort of irrelevant to my decision, for reasons I"ll explain below.
Decision
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:07:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 1:59:42 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:52:17 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I'm not sure, for example, how the cartel argument is countered by overall death rates. I could see where Mikal could have made that argument, but it seems like 16k just cross-applied the argument, despite the lack of explanation. Cartels are a special issue in the U.S., not something that would come up under any of Con's statistics for other countries or even for the assault weapons ban that occurred before. It just seems like 16k is minimizing this argument with faulty cross-application. Stranger still, this doesn't make an appearance in 16k's conclusion, despite having a demonstrable effect on violent crime.

I'm not going to argue that the statistics fell in favor of either side, though I am concerned that 16k relies too heavily on the statistical data while ignoring much of the arguments that Pro provides for how his case differs from those being analyzed in these statistics, and thus makes the statistics of somewhat less importance. It seems that those arguments don't make an appearance in this RFD.

I am concerned that 16k seems to dismiss mass shootings. Pro does spend a substantial amount of time pointing out a) that gun bans have altered the violent crime landscape in both England and Australia by ending these mass shootings, and b) that mass shootings have an important psychological effect on the rest of the country. All of that is washed away in two sentences. It also seems to ignore much of the logic that Pro provided in his case for a reduction in homicides, again focusing solely on statistics. That focus on statistics also seems to blind 16k when it comes to the assault weapons ban of 1994, since he seems to assume that the effects of the 1994 ban, which have been extensively studied, will be mirrored in Pro's case, even though he argues that he's made substantial changes to aspects that left that law vulnerable.

16k also wrongly assumes that Pro dropped the inflammation argument. Admittedly, his responses were only mitigating, but most of those went dropped as well. I appreciated the inflammation point as well, but I don't think this argument is so solidly in Con's corner as this RFD would suggest.

Overall, this RFD does a nearly complete job going through the general arguments, but seems to slant based on those issues that the reader found most persuasive rather than objectively evaluating all of the arguments in the flow of the debate.

3) thett3 [voted for bluesteel]

Just saying: I didn't read anything about the definition of assault weapons past round 2. One of the biggest criticisms of banning "assault weapons" is that it's a deeply nebulous term and means only what the lawmaker defines it as. Bluesteel is the lawmaker.
I wish Mikal had made the argument about the US resisting the buyback more compellingly. A ban and confiscation of all semi automatic weapons would almost certainly lead to civil war or, at the very least, mass violent resistance. In the debate, I'm not given any reason to think that the US is different from Australia. Mikal says Australia *has* lower gun ownership than the US, but considering they implemented a sweeping gun ban I'm not shocked. Mikal kind of hits on this but not nearly enough for me to throw out the everything else and vote on that. So I have to grant that the ban would succeed in getting guns out of civilian hands when I also factor in the stringent penalties for gun transfers.
Mikal should've run constitutionality. It would be scary to do so against a 3L, but it's doubtful this policy would pass muster under 2nd amendment law, and I would seriously hope (although three strikes laws rulings give me doubt) that the courts would overturn as cruel and unusual a penalty of life imprisonment for selling a metal box with a spring.
Bluesteels entire case was dropped and extended--easy vote. The Mexico point alone can carry the day--Mexico has been begging us for years to enact stronger gun laws because most of the weapons the cartels use come from the US. THIS ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY DROPPED AND IS THE BIGGEST IN ROUND IMPACT BY FAR.
Most of the statistical arguments were a wash but there was one part that stood out which was the turn on Mikals argument regarding the 1994 ban. It showed that the banned worked for the guns it targeted. Since blue targets the most deadly guns, under this precedent less deaths would occur.
Pro vote

thett3 produces a relatively short yet constructive RFD, providing Con with feedback as he goes through. However, I don't feel he ever gets to most of the debate. There's good focus on inflammation and the Mexican cartel argument, agreeing with me that these are central issues to the debate as a whole, but seems to ignore the vast majority of the clash that occurred across the rest of the flow. While, admittedly, a lot of it was focused on statistics and that was a jumble to get through, there was a substantial amount of other points that could and should have gotten some attention here, and I especially think he should have spent time explaining why Con's arguments regarding larger trends of crime and death tolls don't apply. Also, it's worth giving Con some positive feedback here " while his argument for violent resistance wasn't altogether clear, it was potent and at least somewhat effective.

4) Emilrose [voted for Mikal]

Both presented strong cases but Con highlighted valid points on assault weapon bans not necessarily preventing criminals from accessing them and the potential for black market and underground dealing. Con also points out that in certain places with strict gun ownership (such as the U.K) crime has actually increased. As well as outlining counter-evidence for Pros case on Australia, with other information suggesting that crime levels aren't exactly attributed to its ban.

While this RFD does include some points explaining the vote some extent, it still wins *worst RFD of the week*

Like there's no other *bad* RFD's that are more worthy of that *win*. It may be brief [which isn't against any rules] but it does actually explain certain points.

For this particular debate, which is the focus of this week, your RFD had the most issues. I'm not saying that yours is a terrible RFD, but it is the worst out of these.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 2:07:39 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:59:42 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:52:17 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I'm not sure, for example, how the cartel argument is countered by overall death rates. I could see where Mikal could have made that argument, but it seems like 16k just cross-applied the argument, despite the lack of explanation. Cartels are a special issue in the U.S., not something that would come up under any of Con's statistics for other countries or even for the assault weapons ban that occurred before. It just seems like 16k is minimizing this argument with faulty cross-application. Stranger still, this doesn't make an appearance in 16k's conclusion, despite having a demonstrable effect on violent crime.

I'm not going to argue that the statistics fell in favor of either side, though I am concerned that 16k relies too heavily on the statistical data while ignoring much of the arguments that Pro provides for how his case differs from those being analyzed in these statistics, and thus makes the statistics of somewhat less importance. It seems that those arguments don't make an appearance in this RFD.

I am concerned that 16k seems to dismiss mass shootings. Pro does spend a substantial amount of time pointing out a) that gun bans have altered the violent crime landscape in both England and Australia by ending these mass shootings, and b) that mass shootings have an important psychological effect on the rest of the country. All of that is washed away in two sentences. It also seems to ignore much of the logic that Pro provided in his case for a reduction in homicides, again focusing solely on statistics. That focus on statistics also seems to blind 16k when it comes to the assault weapons ban of 1994, since he seems to assume that the effects of the 1994 ban, which have been extensively studied, will be mirrored in Pro's case, even though he argues that he's made substantial changes to aspects that left that law vulnerable.

16k also wrongly assumes that Pro dropped the inflammation argument. Admittedly, his responses were only mitigating, but most of those went dropped as well. I appreciated the inflammation point as well, but I don't think this argument is so solidly in Con's corner as this RFD would suggest.

Overall, this RFD does a nearly complete job going through the general arguments, but seems to slant based on those issues that the reader found most persuasive rather than objectively evaluating all of the arguments in the flow of the debate.

3) thett3 [voted for bluesteel]

Just saying: I didn't read anything about the definition of assault weapons past round 2. One of the biggest criticisms of banning "assault weapons" is that it's a deeply nebulous term and means only what the lawmaker defines it as. Bluesteel is the lawmaker.
I wish Mikal had made the argument about the US resisting the buyback more compellingly. A ban and confiscation of all semi automatic weapons would almost certainly lead to civil war or, at the very least, mass violent resistance. In the debate, I'm not given any reason to think that the US is different from Australia. Mikal says Australia *has* lower gun ownership than the US, but considering they implemented a sweeping gun ban I'm not shocked. Mikal kind of hits on this but not nearly enough for me to throw out the everything else and vote on that. So I have to grant that the ban would succeed in getting guns out of civilian hands when I also factor in the stringent penalties for gun transfers.
Mikal should've run constitutionality. It would be scary to do so against a 3L, but it's doubtful this policy would pass muster under 2nd amendment law, and I would seriously hope (although three strikes laws rulings give me doubt) that the courts would overturn as cruel and unusual a penalty of life imprisonment for selling a metal box with a spring.
Bluesteels entire case was dropped and extended--easy vote. The Mexico point alone can carry the day--Mexico has been begging us for years to enact stronger gun laws because most of the weapons the cartels use come from the US. THIS ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY DROPPED AND IS THE BIGGEST IN ROUND IMPACT BY FAR.
Most of the statistical arguments were a wash but there was one part that stood out which was the turn on Mikals argument regarding the 1994 ban. It showed that the banned worked for the guns it targeted. Since blue targets the most deadly guns, under this precedent less deaths would occur.
Pro vote

thett3 produces a relatively short yet constructive RFD, providing Con with feedback as he goes through. However, I don't feel he ever gets to most of the debate. There's good focus on inflammation and the Mexican cartel argument, agreeing with me that these are central issues to the debate as a whole, but seems to ignore the vast majority of the clash that occurred across the rest of the flow. While, admittedly, a lot of it was focused on statistics and that was a jumble to get through, there was a substantial amount of other points that could and should have gotten some attention here, and I especially think he should have spent time explaining why Con's arguments regarding larger trends of crime and death tolls don't apply. Also, it's worth giving Con some positive feedback here " while his argument for violent resistance wasn't altogether clear, it was potent and at least somewhat effective.

4) Emilrose [voted for Mikal]

Both presented strong cases but Con highlighted valid points on assault weapon bans not necessarily preventing criminals from accessing them and the potential for black market and underground dealing. Con also points out that in certain places with strict gun ownership (such as the U.K) crime has actually increased. As well as outlining counter-evidence for Pros case on Australia, with other information suggesting that crime levels aren't exactly attributed to its ban.

While this RFD does include some points explaining the vote some extent, it still wins *worst RFD of the week*

Like there's no other *bad* RFD's that are more worthy of that *win*. It may be brief [which isn't against any rules] but it does actually explain certain points.

For this particular debate, which is the focus of this week, your RFD had the most issues. I'm not saying that yours is a terrible RFD, but it is the worst out of these.

It makes valid points and all of the observations are correct, so I could argue with that. Debates often center around *impact* and that's what I was getting at.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:05:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think this is good. Next week, I'm going to do an "independent analysis" of terrible RFD's that were cast on bsh1's debate with Cassie.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:56:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whose d*ck do I have to pull to get a TL;DR version around here?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 7:00:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 6:56:16 PM, imabench wrote:
Whose d*ck do I have to pull to get a TL;DR version around here?

This is actually worth reading the entire way through.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 7:42:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 1:45:47 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Can you even fit mine on one post? lol. BoT has a theory on BOP I wrote, btw. If you want to look at that.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 8:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 6:56:16 PM, imabench wrote:
Whose d*ck do I have to pull to get a TL;DR version around here?

I'll post one after I'm done with donald.keller's RFD.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 8:40:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:42:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:45:47 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Can you even fit mine on one post? lol. BoT has a theory on BOP I wrote, btw. If you want to look at that.

Heh, it'll likely have to be 2 posts, though I promise I'll get to it, probably tomorrow.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 8:41:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 5:05:36 PM, YYW wrote:
I think this is good. Next week, I'm going to do an "independent analysis" of terrible RFD's that were cast on bsh1's debate with Cassie.

Glad you appreciate it. I'll look forward to seeing your analysis of those votes.
BLAHthedebator
Posts: 982
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 6:29:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 1:50:30 PM, whiteflame wrote:
BLAH also seems to provide some responses to Pro's arguments regarding the black market, despite the fact that Con never gave them. Admittedly, some of these are cross-applications of other arguments Con made, but as both points Pro stated on black markets went uncontested, I think it's unreasonable to make that argument for him. He also ignores Pro's response to the buyback being ineffective, showing that it only has to be effective to a large degree, which Con never addressed. In fact, he seems to give a lot of weight to the black market issue that just isn't there, especially after Con dropped it for two rounds.

The explanation for why Pro didn't meet the resolution is perplexing. I've read through it a couple of times, and he didn't even really mention the reasoning for Pro's definition being abusive. Pro set the goalposts early and clarified them multiple times without changing them. Con seemed to be trying to preempt abuse where there was none with this argument, and I'm not sure how much that abuse matters to BLAH either.

But perhaps the most glaring problem with this RFD is just its lack of coverage. He allows Con to establish links between the two cases in the final round and uses that as a justification to ignore Pro's case wholesale. There's no mention of Mexican cartels, no effort to discuss deterrence or defense, and the overall crime and death tolls don't even get passing mention.

Overall, while this RFD does explain the perception of this voter, it seems to be highly biased. There's no obvious winning point provided for Con beyond maybe the abuse point, and he seems to just be giving Con the debate on the basis of mitigation alone.

Thanks for the feedback! I could literally tell my RFD was going to be considered mediocre...
I don't want a lot for Christmas
There is just one thing I need
I don't care about the presents
Underneath the Christmas tree
I just want you for my own
More than you could ever know
Make my wish come true
All I want for Christmas...
Is...
Youuuuuu
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 2:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This was really good. And I agree with the criticism of my RFD--I think a lot of my RFDs have been lacking lately actually. I just don't have it in me to meticulously explain everything. In my defense though, blues case was dropped. Even if Mikal won on all the statistical wrangling, it wouldn't come close to outweighing
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 6:29:18 AM, BLAHthedebator wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:50:30 PM, whiteflame wrote:
BLAH also seems to provide some responses to Pro's arguments regarding the black market, despite the fact that Con never gave them. Admittedly, some of these are cross-applications of other arguments Con made, but as both points Pro stated on black markets went uncontested, I think it's unreasonable to make that argument for him. He also ignores Pro's response to the buyback being ineffective, showing that it only has to be effective to a large degree, which Con never addressed. In fact, he seems to give a lot of weight to the black market issue that just isn't there, especially after Con dropped it for two rounds.

The explanation for why Pro didn't meet the resolution is perplexing. I've read through it a couple of times, and he didn't even really mention the reasoning for Pro's definition being abusive. Pro set the goalposts early and clarified them multiple times without changing them. Con seemed to be trying to preempt abuse where there was none with this argument, and I'm not sure how much that abuse matters to BLAH either.

But perhaps the most glaring problem with this RFD is just its lack of coverage. He allows Con to establish links between the two cases in the final round and uses that as a justification to ignore Pro's case wholesale. There's no mention of Mexican cartels, no effort to discuss deterrence or defense, and the overall crime and death tolls don't even get passing mention.

Overall, while this RFD does explain the perception of this voter, it seems to be highly biased. There's no obvious winning point provided for Con beyond maybe the abuse point, and he seems to just be giving Con the debate on the basis of mitigation alone.

Thanks for the feedback! I could literally tell my RFD was going to be considered mediocre...

Well, it wasn't a bad RFD. I think you covered a lot of the issues in the debate, but it just seems clear to me that you focused on certain aspects pretty heavily. It happens, and we all do it, just worth noticing where the problems lie here.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 2:49:34 PM, thett3 wrote:
This was really good. And I agree with the criticism of my RFD--I think a lot of my RFDs have been lacking lately actually. I just don't have it in me to meticulously explain everything. In my defense though, blues case was dropped. Even if Mikal won on all the statistical wrangling, it wouldn't come close to outweighing

Yeah, I agree with you that it was basically over after Mikal dropped bluesteel's case, though admittedly one of his arguments could have outweighed if it hadn't appeared for the first time in R4 and had really gotten some solid explanation. I think your RFD actually covered the largest of the issues, it just seemed to oversimplify the debate (even though those are what it came down to).
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 6:24:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is very well done. I hope you and bluesteel keep doing these. They're very helpful.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 7:16:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 6:24:01 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
This is very well done. I hope you and bluesteel keep doing these. They're very helpful.

I appreciate that. I'm happy to leave most of this to bluesteel, who I agree is doing an impressive job, since it's a pretty substantial time commitment to do all this. Still, I'm happy to fill in for him while he's busy.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 7:17:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:42:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/8/2015 1:45:47 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Can you even fit mine on one post? lol. BoT has a theory on BOP I wrote, btw. If you want to look at that.

Well, looks like I'm going to have to break my promise of getting yours done today, the day is just running away from me. I'll pick it up as soon as I get the time, promise I won't forget.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This was an excellent addition to the series. Thanks for doing it this week Whiteflame, I thoroughly enjoyed the analysis you provided for these RFD's.

For those who haven't come to fully appreciate contributions to the site of this manner, I highly suggest you read through them. I, for one, have gained alot from these, and know that alot of people could gain alot from these as well.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:31:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It would be kind of cool to see this with rotating contributors. Maybe YYW can fill in next week as he suggested.

... Not that I mind seeing bluesteel post every week
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:35:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:31:33 PM, Raisor wrote:
It would be kind of cool to see this with rotating contributors. Maybe YYW can fill in next week as he suggested.

... Not that I mind seeing bluesteel post every week

Bluesteel and I are working it out. I'm going to do a part, and he said he'd chime in. I'd like to see white flame participate too. This kind of "active learning" could serve a valuable function here.

The next debate whose RFD's are going to be critiqued is Bsh1's debate with Cassie about whether gay marriage should be permitted.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The most frustrating thing I saw in rfds for this debate were the ones that said mikal won the cartels issue or just dropped it.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think there are other debates, like DK's and Emilrose's, that should be put ahead of mine in the queue. Frankly, I am getting sick/exhausted from all the drama my debate has caused, so I would rather it not get reviewed at all...a process which would no doubt entail more drama, even if that isn't the intent.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:46:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:34:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
When's the next one happening and who's doing it?

What debate would you like to see broken down?
Tsar of DDO