Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

RFD for fire_wings vs. missmozart

warren42
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 12:24:13 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Crime
This goes Pro. I don't think that her source was great, because it pertains exclusively to handguns, but it is definitely preferred to Con's from the 90s, especially when Con admits he isn't sure about it. Pro proves that generally (go New Hampshire!) easy access to guns means more shootings/year. Con argues the following "In the source, which was hard to see, there was nothing about crime, only about licenses, open carrying guns and non-open carrying guns. There is nothing about stricter gun control having less crimes, unless you mean deaths. There were some states where it was prohibited, but it was still around 9 in the chart. That also isn't 100%, because that is what the citizens think, things can change, and crime can get worse, like my conclusive data. My opponent doesn't refute my crime argument, and doesn't defend hers correctly, so this is a objective win for Con!!!!" but this isn't true, as it shows gun-related deaths per year and has nothing to do with opinions? Crime flows Pro.

Suicide
Pro wins this. Pro proved positive correlation of gun rates and suicide rates, and though Con is right in the fact that suicide will occur regardless, but guns definitely make it easier. Con's approach to suicide with regards to autonomy is interesting, and definitely minimized the impacts of one of the strongest contentions Pro had. Pro did a solid job of rebutting this by saying suicide is still a net harm to society, regardless of the will of the individual. It also shows how some people will be deterred due to increased pain because many non-gun methods are less effective and more painful. Good work to Con here, but it still goes Pro, with a decent impact.

That being said, both of you are relatively callous when it comes to suicide. Many people who commit suicide are tormented by mental issues not "weak" as Pro puts it, and they should be given help, not allowed to just go through with it without anyone attempting to deter them like Con suggests. Someone very close to me has told me multiple times how they'd kill themselves if not for the impact it'd have on other people, and it's incredibly scary to think about. I am able to understand where each of you are coming from, and am not upset about your points, nor do I hold what you said against you personally or for the purposes of judging the debate, but just try to be more understanding of this legitimate issue.

Accidents
Pro wins this. Con's separate attacks on this were essentially "make manufacturers create more safety checks" and "parents have to keep them away from kids." Unfortunately, Con focused more on the second option, which I definitely feel was the worse one. That being said, the idea of manufacturers helping resolve the issue would definitely help, so Pro's impact is minimized due to the Con counterplan.

Defense
Con's logic here makes sense. I would've preferred empirical evidence over the anecdote, but it is sufficient until missmozart's rebuttal when she points out that even if you were to own a gun, it is unlikely you have it on hand when such a situation develops. Pro develops, with evidence, an argument showing that it is very unlikely that you will be able to use a gun in self-defense. Pro concedes in Round 4 that it's basically you can prevent accidents and have the guns locked away, therefore inefficient for defense, or have the gun handy but not safe from accidental discharge. Either way, although guns would be used in self defense more if not banned (obviously) it isn't a huge benefit. Con wins, but minimal impact.

2nd Amendment
Pro wins this. Con's argument here relies heavily on circular logic. It is essentially "If something is a law, then it must be followed, and if it is followed, it is a law, and laws are important." Which makes very little sense. Con never impacted why civil obedience is important, or why the government should not consider changing laws. missmozart points out in Round 2 the circular logic in this argument, and Con never really came back from that. This argument is won by Pro, but since it is a Con argument, it has no real weight.

Gun Culture
This goes Con. Pro attempted to use her Gallup evidence to prove that Americans do not love guns. Though based on the data showing 55% of Americans favor stricter gun laws, it may seem that Americans do not in fact love guns, later on a poll shows 72% of Americans do not support a gun ban. Therefore, guns are still relatively popular, even if not to the extent Con argues. In R4 missmozart's quotes from fire_wings source shows many Americans are in favor of an assault weapon ban, but that is not the same as a gun ban, which would include pistols and semiautomatic firearms as well. That being said, strong pro-gun individuals are definitely passionate about this, and stripping their guns from them would have negative impacts on their life, as Con argues. However, Con had difficulty impacting this, simply stating their livelihood was important, without warranting why it was important. Con wins this one, but minimal impact on my decision.

Economy
This goes Con. Pro claimed most guns aren't sold in the US but her sources did not prove this. They only talked about the massive amount of exports in the US gun market. Theoretically, .01% of the guns manufactured in the US could be exported and the US could still be the #1 exporter in the world. Even if we were to be generous to Pro and assume the split was 50-50, this is a major economic impact. Pro concedes manufacturers would be affected and it would harm the economy. Unique approach to the topic with this point, fire_wings, I really liked this take on it!

Though this didn't affect my decision since it wasn't an argument made in the debate, I'm not sure as to whether a gun ban would make it illegal to manufacture guns as Con argues, but would assume not, since Pro states the ban would apply to citizens only and that government officials would still have them. This means that guns would still be produced for police, military, etc. who are, in all likelihood, the main buyer market for guns, so manufacturing would still continue, just at a lower rate.

Effectiveness of Ban
This point was brought up by Con, who said it'd be difficult to enforce. Went relatively unrefuted, but was essentially dropped by both sides. Won by Con, but absolutely no impact on the debate.

Final Decision: PRO
The only major point won by Con was economy. Very interesting point and I liked it a lot, but it does not outweigh crime, suicide, and accidents, which I'd say were the other major points in the round. The minor points went more to Con, but all held very little weight, and when combined with the negative economic effects do not outweigh the major points won by Pro. Good debate to you both, please feel free to PM me with any questions you have about this debate.
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 12:30:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/19/2016 12:24:13 AM, warren42 wrote:
Crime
This goes Pro. I don't think that her source was great, because it pertains exclusively to handguns, but it is definitely preferred to Con's from the 90s, especially when Con admits he isn't sure about it. Pro proves that generally (go New Hampshire!) easy access to guns means more shootings/year. Con argues the following "In the source, which was hard to see, there was nothing about crime, only about licenses, open carrying guns and non-open carrying guns. There is nothing about stricter gun control having less crimes, unless you mean deaths. There were some states where it was prohibited, but it was still around 9 in the chart. That also isn't 100%, because that is what the citizens think, things can change, and crime can get worse, like my conclusive data. My opponent doesn't refute my crime argument, and doesn't defend hers correctly, so this is a objective win for Con!!!!" but this isn't true, as it shows gun-related deaths per year and has nothing to do with opinions? Crime flows Pro.

Suicide
Pro wins this. Pro proved positive correlation of gun rates and suicide rates, and though Con is right in the fact that suicide will occur regardless, but guns definitely make it easier. Con's approach to suicide with regards to autonomy is interesting, and definitely minimized the impacts of one of the strongest contentions Pro had. Pro did a solid job of rebutting this by saying suicide is still a net harm to society, regardless of the will of the individual. It also shows how some people will be deterred due to increased pain because many non-gun methods are less effective and more painful. Good work to Con here, but it still goes Pro, with a decent impact.

That being said, both of you are relatively callous when it comes to suicide. Many people who commit suicide are tormented by mental issues not "weak" as Pro puts it, and they should be given help, not allowed to just go through with it without anyone attempting to deter them like Con suggests. Someone very close to me has told me multiple times how they'd kill themselves if not for the impact it'd have on other people, and it's incredibly scary to think about. I am able to understand where each of you are coming from, and am not upset about your points, nor do I hold what you said against you personally or for the purposes of judging the debate, but just try to be more understanding of this legitimate issue.

Accidents
Pro wins this. Con's separate attacks on this were essentially "make manufacturers create more safety checks" and "parents have to keep them away from kids." Unfortunately, Con focused more on the second option, which I definitely feel was the worse one. That being said, the idea of manufacturers helping resolve the issue would definitely help, so Pro's impact is minimized due to the Con counterplan.

Defense
Con's logic here makes sense. I would've preferred empirical evidence over the anecdote, but it is sufficient until missmozart's rebuttal when she points out that even if you were to own a gun, it is unlikely you have it on hand when such a situation develops. Pro develops, with evidence, an argument showing that it is very unlikely that you will be able to use a gun in self-defense. Pro concedes in Round 4 that it's basically you can prevent accidents and have the guns locked away, therefore inefficient for defense, or have the gun handy but not safe from accidental discharge. Either way, although guns would be used in self defense more if not banned (obviously) it isn't a huge benefit. Con wins, but minimal impact.

2nd Amendment
Pro wins this. Con's argument here relies heavily on circular logic. It is essentially "If something is a law, then it must be followed, and if it is followed, it is a law, and laws are important." Which makes very little sense. Con never impacted why civil obedience is important, or why the government should not consider changing laws. missmozart points out in Round 2 the circular logic in this argument, and Con never really came back from that. This argument is won by Pro, but since it is a Con argument, it has no real weight.

Gun Culture
This goes Con. Pro attempted to use her Gallup evidence to prove that Americans do not love guns. Though based on the data showing 55% of Americans favor stricter gun laws, it may seem that Americans do not in fact love guns, later on a poll shows 72% of Americans do not support a gun ban. Therefore, guns are still relatively popular, even if not to the extent Con argues. In R4 missmozart's quotes from fire_wings source shows many Americans are in favor of an assault weapon ban, but that is not the same as a gun ban, which would include pistols and semiautomatic firearms as well. That being said, strong pro-gun individuals are definitely passionate about this, and stripping their guns from them would have negative impacts on their life, as Con argues. However, Con had difficulty impacting this, simply stating their livelihood was important, without warranting why it was important. Con wins this one, but minimal impact on my decision.

Economy
This goes Con. Pro claimed most guns aren't sold in the US but her sources did not prove this. They only talked about the massive amount of exports in the US gun market. Theoretically, .01% of the guns manufactured in the US could be exported and the US could still be the #1 exporter in the world. Even if we were to be generous to Pro and assume the split was 50-50, this is a major economic impact. Pro concedes manufacturers would be affected and it would harm the economy. Unique approach to the topic with this point, fire_wings, I really liked this take on it!

Though this didn't affect my decision since it wasn't an argument made in the debate, I'm not sure as to whether a gun ban would make it illegal to manufacture guns as Con argues, but would assume not, since Pro states the ban would apply to citizens only and that government officials would still have them. This means that guns would still be produced for police, military, etc. who are, in all likelihood, the main buyer market for guns, so manufacturing would still continue, just at a lower rate.

Effectiveness of Ban
This point was brought up by Con, who said it'd be difficult to enforce. Went relatively unrefuted, but was essentially dropped by both sides. Won by Con, but absolutely no impact on the debate.

Final Decision: PRO
The only major point won by Con was economy. Very interesting point and I liked it a lot, but it does not outweigh crime, suicide, and accidents, which I'd say were the other major points in the round. The minor points went more to Con, but all held very little weight, and when combined with the negative economic effects do not outweigh the major points won by Pro. Good debate to you both, please feel free to PM me with any questions you have about this debate.

These normally go here http://www.debate.org...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 4:01:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/19/2016 12:24:13 AM, warren42 wrote:
Crime

Final Decision: PRO
The only major point won by Con was economy. Very interesting point and I liked it a lot, but it does not outweigh crime, suicide, and accidents, which I'd say were the other major points in the round. The minor points went more to Con, but all held very little weight, and when combined with the negative economic effects do not outweigh the major points won by Pro. Good debate to you both, please feel free to PM me with any questions you have about this debate.

Wait a second, how is self-defense not a major point?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
GoogooGaga
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 4:12:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
RFD on forums in 2016
Serial killers get caught by their signature, I'm not a serial killer though... LOL
warren42
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 7:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/19/2016 12:30:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 9/19/2016 12:24:13 AM, warren42 wrote:
Crime
This goes Pro. I don't think that her source was great, because it pertains exclusively to handguns, but it is definitely preferred to Con's from the 90s, especially when Con admits he isn't sure about it. Pro proves that generally (go New Hampshire!) easy access to guns means more shootings/year. Con argues the following "In the source, which was hard to see, there was nothing about crime, only about licenses, open carrying guns and non-open carrying guns. There is nothing about stricter gun control having less crimes, unless you mean deaths. There were some states where it was prohibited, but it was still around 9 in the chart. That also isn't 100%, because that is what the citizens think, things can change, and crime can get worse, like my conclusive data. My opponent doesn't refute my crime argument, and doesn't defend hers correctly, so this is a objective win for Con!!!!" but this isn't true, as it shows gun-related deaths per year and has nothing to do with opinions? Crime flows Pro.

Suicide
Pro wins this. Pro proved positive correlation of gun rates and suicide rates, and though Con is right in the fact that suicide will occur regardless, but guns definitely make it easier. Con's approach to suicide with regards to autonomy is interesting, and definitely minimized the impacts of one of the strongest contentions Pro had. Pro did a solid job of rebutting this by saying suicide is still a net harm to society, regardless of the will of the individual. It also shows how some people will be deterred due to increased pain because many non-gun methods are less effective and more painful. Good work to Con here, but it still goes Pro, with a decent impact.

That being said, both of you are relatively callous when it comes to suicide. Many people who commit suicide are tormented by mental issues not "weak" as Pro puts it, and they should be given help, not allowed to just go through with it without anyone attempting to deter them like Con suggests. Someone very close to me has told me multiple times how they'd kill themselves if not for the impact it'd have on other people, and it's incredibly scary to think about. I am able to understand where each of you are coming from, and am not upset about your points, nor do I hold what you said against you personally or for the purposes of judging the debate, but just try to be more understanding of this legitimate issue.

Accidents
Pro wins this. Con's separate attacks on this were essentially "make manufacturers create more safety checks" and "parents have to keep them away from kids." Unfortunately, Con focused more on the second option, which I definitely feel was the worse one. That being said, the idea of manufacturers helping resolve the issue would definitely help, so Pro's impact is minimized due to the Con counterplan.

Defense
Con's logic here makes sense. I would've preferred empirical evidence over the anecdote, but it is sufficient until missmozart's rebuttal when she points out that even if you were to own a gun, it is unlikely you have it on hand when such a situation develops. Pro develops, with evidence, an argument showing that it is very unlikely that you will be able to use a gun in self-defense. Pro concedes in Round 4 that it's basically you can prevent accidents and have the guns locked away, therefore inefficient for defense, or have the gun handy but not safe from accidental discharge. Either way, although guns would be used in self defense more if not banned (obviously) it isn't a huge benefit. Con wins, but minimal impact.

2nd Amendment
Pro wins this. Con's argument here relies heavily on circular logic. It is essentially "If something is a law, then it must be followed, and if it is followed, it is a law, and laws are important." Which makes very little sense. Con never impacted why civil obedience is important, or why the government should not consider changing laws. missmozart points out in Round 2 the circular logic in this argument, and Con never really came back from that. This argument is won by Pro, but since it is a Con argument, it has no real weight.

Gun Culture
This goes Con. Pro attempted to use her Gallup evidence to prove that Americans do not love guns. Though based on the data showing 55% of Americans favor stricter gun laws, it may seem that Americans do not in fact love guns, later on a poll shows 72% of Americans do not support a gun ban. Therefore, guns are still relatively popular, even if not to the extent Con argues. In R4 missmozart's quotes from fire_wings source shows many Americans are in favor of an assault weapon ban, but that is not the same as a gun ban, which would include pistols and semiautomatic firearms as well. That being said, strong pro-gun individuals are definitely passionate about this, and stripping their guns from them would have negative impacts on their life, as Con argues. However, Con had difficulty impacting this, simply stating their livelihood was important, without warranting why it was important. Con wins this one, but minimal impact on my decision.

Economy
This goes Con. Pro claimed most guns aren't sold in the US but her sources did not prove this. They only talked about the massive amount of exports in the US gun market. Theoretically, .01% of the guns manufactured in the US could be exported and the US could still be the #1 exporter in the world. Even if we were to be generous to Pro and assume the split was 50-50, this is a major economic impact. Pro concedes manufacturers would be affected and it would harm the economy. Unique approach to the topic with this point, fire_wings, I really liked this take on it!

Though this didn't affect my decision since it wasn't an argument made in the debate, I'm not sure as to whether a gun ban would make it illegal to manufacture guns as Con argues, but would assume not, since Pro states the ban would apply to citizens only and that government officials would still have them. This means that guns would still be produced for police, military, etc. who are, in all likelihood, the main buyer market for guns, so manufacturing would still continue, just at a lower rate.

Effectiveness of Ban
This point was brought up by Con, who said it'd be difficult to enforce. Went relatively unrefuted, but was essentially dropped by both sides. Won by Con, but absolutely no impact on the debate.

Final Decision: PRO
The only major point won by Con was economy. Very interesting point and I liked it a lot, but it does not outweigh crime, suicide, and accidents, which I'd say were the other major points in the round. The minor points went more to Con, but all held very little weight, and when combined with the negative economic effects do not outweigh the major points won by Pro. Good debate to you both, please feel free to PM me with any questions you have about this debate.

These normally go here http://www.debate.org...

Alright thank you, until recently I posted RFDs in comments and I rarely use the forums so I'm not fully on board with how this works.
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
warren42
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 7:16:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/19/2016 4:01:04 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 9/19/2016 12:24:13 AM, warren42 wrote:
Crime

Final Decision: PRO
The only major point won by Con was economy. Very interesting point and I liked it a lot, but it does not outweigh crime, suicide, and accidents, which I'd say were the other major points in the round. The minor points went more to Con, but all held very little weight, and when combined with the negative economic effects do not outweigh the major points won by Pro. Good debate to you both, please feel free to PM me with any questions you have about this debate.

Wait a second, how is self-defense not a major point?

I analyzed it under "defense" and stated it had minimal impact on my decision. Specifically, your numbers jumped all over the place, many were guesses rather than empirics, and most of your evidence for this was having the voters imagine scenarios; this isn't the best way to win an argument when your opponent provides concrete data and remains consistent with her figures. Anecdotes are most effective when coupled with unwavering empirical evidence.
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2016 7:28:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Thanks for your RFD
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome