Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

tajshar2k vs. famousdebater Guns Debate RFD

tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 3:39:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an RFD for the debate between Tajshar2k and Famousdebater, on a resolution regarding a gun ban. The debate's link follows -- http://www.debate.org... I'm keeping this RFD in a forum post due to character constraints in the RFD box; since, by convention, RFD's are in forum posts to bypass the RFD character limit.

--

Now, onto the RFD.

(1) Abuse

An issue I have with the structure of the debate is that Con rapidly changed the structure amid the debate for "fairness," which I find to be abusive. Pro doesn't contest this, but abuse is one issue a tabula rasa judge can bring up. There was no point to Pro's skipping a round. The "contender advantage" is the ability to gain additional rebuttals. It is an acknowledged fact in all debating styles except Public Forum debate and parliamentary style. As a downside, Pro had fewer characters to focus on their case. That's enough nullification. Furthermore, on DDO, the "instigator advantage" exists, which is a +25 Elo advantage for the instigator, meant to nullify the contender advantage -- additional rebuttals. No further excuses can be made. Passing the round was unnecessary, when there was no restriction on round structure. This is overly abusive, and factored into my decision.

(2) Gun culture

Not seeing much offense in this. But it has an impact -- hunters' livelihood comes from owning guns. Pro drops this impact, but contends via a weighing mechanism that lives outweighs this impact. So I can only buy this impact if Pro's other impacts fail, since Pro gives me an actual impact calculus, where I weigh lives over this. Con correctly argues that Pro's dismissal was incorrect, but Pro does offer an impact calc in rebuttal. So the lives point decides this.

(3) Crime rates and lives lost

This is the only offense I get from Pro, and much of Con's offense (including the pro's of CCW, self-defense). Con also has two defensive points (that only serve to mitigate, rather than providing actual reasons to vote Con), i.e. the ineffective argument, the existence of illegal guns, both of which fit into this. I"m just fitting it all into this so that it doesn"t become too cluttered and messy.

First, Con gives the example of Vermont to argue that gun bans are ineffective. Pro"s response is the debate concerns 50 states, not just Vermont, so it"s a hasty generalization. I agree that it is a glaring flaw in the argument. So then Con just argues the other arguments to defend this, and it isn"t a compelling response. This "ineffective" argument only works for some states and is a defense. I"ll address this further with the other arguments.

Then, Con argues that guns are used for self-defense, and argues that studies show 200,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses occur each year. And Con argues that "guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occurred." So he argues that this impact outweighs lives lost. I just don"t get Pro"s response to this argument. He goes way off track, arguing presence of guns at home kills children. I get the offense, but what about the defensive purposes? Pro runs some straw-man "good kid with gun kills bad kid," and so forth. How is this relevant at all? All I can get (and it"s hardly explained at all) is a weighing mechanism of "lives lost outweighs guns used for defense." Pro doesn"t explain *how this is true.* Con wins this, but Con doesn"t explain how defensive purposes outweighs total gun-related homicides, since defensive purposes =/= prevention of homicide. Anyway, I"ll get to this in my conclusion. Next, Con argues 93% of gun crime is committed by illegal guns, so a gun ban wouldn"t be effective. Pro has a compelling response to this -- it would"ve been tough to get the illegal guns without them being sold legally. That mitigates the impact, but doesn"t entirely defeat it. Con"s response to this is hardly compelling or strong -- it"s something along the lines of "we don"t know," and nothing Con says in response is warranted. Then, Con argues that CCWs significantly reduce crime. Pro *drops* this offense entirely.

Onto Pro"s offense. Pro"s first argument is that legal guns result in multiple accidental deaths. There"s a fairly strong impact. Pro argues there"ll be more gun-related accidents than car accidents soon, and the risk levels are extremely high. Con"s response is a weighing mechanism response. *Seriously,* debaters, enough with the weighing -- try to *address your opponent"s argument* instead of leaving it to your argument. Plus Con"s attack on Pro"s sources is just false -- the sources do mention accidents. So this bit goes to Pro. Next, school shootings. I"m not addressing the opening and accusations of appeals to emotion -- seriously, Con, it wasn"t even an argument; it was for a good *opening.* Onto this actual argument. Con"s responses to the school shootings impact is unclear. He first argues comparing demographics is flawed, but so what? Con concedes that there *is* a significant amount of school shootings. Then, the appeal to 93% illegal guns fails -- I"ve already addressed that above, the impact is severely weakened. Finally, the effect on homicide rates argument. Pro shows that increase in guns causes higher homicide rates. Con argues Pro doesn"t source this -- but *what else* is the "More Guns, More Crime" source? Then Pro brings the 93% statistic again, which fails.

== Impact calculus ==

Con wins the probability on gun culture, and gets some probability on CCWs reducing crime, and guns reducing crime. The defensive argument probability -- and Pro"s offense -- all go to Pro. So, overall, the main offenses gain their probabilities. Now, onto magnitude. The debaters focus a lot on magnitude in some places, and very little in others. I have to make a calculation here. Con"s offense -- 200,000 to 2 million gun defenses, but no clear indication of defenses "against what." I"m not seeing it as necessarily homicide. Pro doesn"t focus much on the magnitude of gun-related deaths when it actually comes to homicides, but accidental deaths carries a huge magnitude. But the probability of Con"s is weakened by: "people were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one," which also adds some magnitude to Pro"s case. Since there is a significant weakening in probability, I can weigh Pro"s huge accident numbers (note that these are *deaths,* not merely injuries) and school shootings alone against Con and gain a Pro win. 26 average on 1 shooting, 3 mass shootings a year, gets 78 killed, plus all the accidents and homicides impacts. While actual mechanisms may quite gain a Con win (e.g. showing 200,000 gun defenses preventing death), but since Con fails to sufficiently explain any of that, Pro wins on magnitude.

[Advice: both sides, stop using your contentions to rebut arguments. Way too many IC"s, etc. Try to actually rebut your opponent's statistic.]

I vote Pro.

Sorry for formatting errors due to C/P.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 3:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
[Add-on: prefer lives/crime to gun culture over magnitude, so G.C. impact outweighed.]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 6:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
See? Best debater.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:33:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Add-on: While tajshar2k's guns save lives argument wasn't adequately addressed, famousdebater actually turned the argument in his own guns cause deaths argument, where he showed that guns actually cause more deaths; murders are more likely in homes with a gun. I prefer this to tajshar2k's deterrent effect argument because the latter's source doesn't support the 200,000 - 2 million number at all (it seems completely arbitrary).

That significantly influenced my voting decision.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass