Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Need Voting Advice

Quadrunner
Posts: 1,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2016 4:04:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
So I want to give this debate a nice fair vote. I haven't drawn my conclusion yet, and I'd like a little advice on a couple parts.

As with most debates, there were mistakes on both sides.

Pros biggest mistake was this paragraph.

Positive Acknowledgment

I do acknowlegde that there are positives of owning a gun. That is why this is such a highly controversial and debated topic. However the debate resolution is structured in the form of an "on balance" resolution. Meaning that with all points considered guns should be banned because overall (with both positives and negatives included) we see guns as having more negatives than positives.

I am sure that both me and Con understand that there are positives and negatives to this issue however the disagreement here regardes whether the positives outweigh the negatives or vice versa.

Since I am advocating the private ban on guns only, I am willing to allow the police and hunters to keep their guns on them as their guns are not privately owned and therefore they can still have guns. So to answer my opponent's questions:



Con's biggest mistake was not forcing Pro to consider all guns positive points, which theoretically could have outweighed Pro's argument if they held more weight. Or was it?

Con listed one benefit in his opening debate roughly put, "Guns are used for wild animal protection" to force pro to resort to balancing Pro's and Con's.

Now since neither Pro nor Con weighed the positives of gun use, I'm in a conundrum. Am I supposed to blame Pro because they had burden of proof, or am I supposed to blame Con because its implicitly their job to list the points in favor of guns?

I'm leaning in favor of Con on this point, because of burden of proof, but I'm afraid I'm biased because I have knowledge outside of the debate that there are arguable benefits. The only benefit in listed in the debate was wild animal protection, but the degree was never shown, so I feel like even though I know lives saved from animal attacks are significantly less then human caused gun death I'm not allowed to assume it.

So should I give the point to Pro, even if they didn't balance anything, or should I assume Pro didn't provide proof of all things considered? Burden of Proof was not stated to be shared in this debate, so its on Pro.

Baseless
Meaning that with all points considered guns should be banned because overall (with both positives and negatives included) we see guns as having more negatives than positives.

In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
http://www.debate.org...
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2016 4:11:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/10/2016 4:04:43 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
So I want to give this debate a nice fair vote. I haven't drawn my conclusion yet, and I'd like a little advice on a couple parts.

As with most debates, there were mistakes on both sides.

Keep in mind that youre always allowed to leave argument points as a tie if you genuinely cant make heads or tails out of who won the debate.

Pros biggest mistake was this paragraph.

Positive Acknowledgment

I do acknowlegde that there are positives of owning a gun. That is why this is such a highly controversial and debated topic. However the debate resolution is structured in the form of an "on balance" resolution. Meaning that with all points considered guns should be banned because overall (with both positives and negatives included) we see guns as having more negatives than positives.

I am sure that both me and Con understand that there are positives and negatives to this issue however the disagreement here regardes whether the positives outweigh the negatives or vice versa.

Since I am advocating the private ban on guns only, I am willing to allow the police and hunters to keep their guns on them as their guns are not privately owned and therefore they can still have guns. So to answer my opponent's questions:



Con's biggest mistake was not forcing Pro to consider all guns positive points, which theoretically could have outweighed Pro's argument if they held more weight. Or was it?

Con listed one benefit in his opening debate roughly put, "Guns are used for wild animal protection" to force pro to resort to balancing Pro's and Con's.

Now since neither Pro nor Con weighed the positives of gun use, I'm in a conundrum. Am I supposed to blame Pro because they had burden of proof, or am I supposed to blame Con because its implicitly their job to list the points in favor of guns?

If both sides have some burden of proof to make for their case, and neither of them fully meets it, you could weigh who at least does the better job of making an overall case for their side. Con may have failed to list points in favor of guns, but did they give a lot of arguments against guns that Pro didnt refute well? If so, then Con would win argument points even though he didnt successfully meet the full BoP as Pro did

I'm leaning in favor of Con on this point, because of burden of proof, but I'm afraid I'm biased because I have knowledge outside of the debate that there are arguable benefits.

When voting, youre only allowed to use arguments made in the debate. Its Pro vs Con, not Pro vs you AND con. Try to use con's own arguments to justify your vote, because if you bring in your own knowledge about the issue not mentioned in the debate, then your vote will 90% likely be deleted

The only benefit in listed in the debate was wild animal protection, but the degree was never shown, so I feel like even though I know lives saved from animal attacks are significantly less then human caused gun death I'm not allowed to assume it.

So should I give the point to Pro, even if they didn't balance anything, or should I assume Pro didn't provide proof of all things considered? Burden of Proof was not stated to be shared in this debate, so its on Pro.

You an give an argument to Pro but still rule the rest of the arguments, including argument points, to con for reasons listed in the debate. "Pro had a good point with ____ that Con couldnt/didnt refute, but Con had better points regarding ________ that Pro failed to refute himself"

Baseless
Meaning that with all points considered guns should be banned because overall (with both positives and negatives included) we see guns as having more negatives than positives.







In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
http://www.debate.org...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

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