Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Bob's RFDs for August.

Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Hayd vs. Tajshar2k: The United States ought to ban firearms.
http://www.debate.org...

RFD:
Pro's first contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of suicides.
Pro cites various statistics, eventually concluding that a firearm ban would save 18,104 lives from suicide each year. Con concedes to this in the final round when he weighs impacts. Successful for Pro.
Pro's second contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of gun-related accidents.
Pro cites 15,000-19,000 deaths per year from gun-related accidents. Con corrects that statistic which is actually 505, and Pro admits his mistake. However, Con conceded that these accidents happen, so this was also a success for Pro.
Pro's third contention: Banning firearms would reduce deaths from crime.
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.
Con's first contention: Firearms are used in self-defense.
Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.
Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.
Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.
Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.
Conclusion
According to Pro's arguments that Con conceded to, 18,609 lives would be saved each year by a firearm ban, in addition to 15,000-19,000 injuries prevented.
According to Con's arguments, 235,000 people would die each year as a result of a gun ban, in addition to 103,000 property crimes that could have been prevented by use of a firearm.
Con has proven that a firearm ban would take more lives than it would save, and it would also harm the economy. Pro's objection of "Lives have more impact" has lost relevance.
Con clearly wins.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:46:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM, Bob13 wrote:
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

This summary ignores my argument that although it would spawn more gunsmiths to work illegally, their production rate is extremely slim. They can only produce a few weapons are year, of which they will have to devote their career to. They thus *have* to charge high prices for these firearms in order to make a living, and criminals can't afford those since they are poor, or they are at least deterred from purchasing them. You don't seem to consider that in your calculation which isn't so good given it makes me win the argument.

Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.

Why would this statistic not apply to everyone? What evidence does Con give that factors present in Philadelphia are not present in the US. The argument that this doesn't apply to everyone is unwarranted and thus shouldn't be considered by you.

And it definately does counter Con's evidence since if someone is more likely to have violence come to them if they carry a gun than if they don't, Con's argument that guns bring safety is completely negated and brings impact to my side.

Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.

Con addressed two factors: income equality and poverty. That doesn't come close to covering the 20 other factors that could be the result of the crime that I explained.

Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

I also argued that banning guns would save more money than it would take, thus negating this argument and bringing impact to my side. You didn't address this

Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Con's rebuttal there completely ignores accidents and suicides since those don't have to do with obeying the law.
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM, Bob13 wrote:
Hayd vs. Tajshar2k: The United States ought to ban firearms.
http://www.debate.org...

RFD:
Pro's first contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of suicides.
Pro cites various statistics, eventually concluding that a firearm ban would save 18,104 lives from suicide each year. Con concedes to this in the final round when he weighs impacts. Successful for Pro.
Pro's second contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of gun-related accidents.
Pro cites 15,000-19,000 deaths per year from gun-related accidents. Con corrects that statistic which is actually 505, and Pro admits his mistake. However, Con conceded that these accidents happen, so this was also a success for Pro.
Pro's third contention: Banning firearms would reduce deaths from crime.
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.
Con's first contention: Firearms are used in self-defense.
Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.
Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.
Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.
Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.
Conclusion
According to Pro's arguments that Con conceded to, 18,609 lives would be saved each year by a firearm ban, in addition to 15,000-19,000 injuries prevented.
According to Con's arguments, 235,000 people would die each year as a result of a gun ban, in addition to 103,000 property crimes that could have been prevented by use of a firearm.
Con has proven that a firearm ban would take more lives than it would save, and it would also harm the economy. Pro's objection of "Lives have more impact" has lost relevance.
Con clearly wins.

This is a complete disaster, and I think it's time to disband the voter's union.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Virtually every single thing about this RFD was wrong, and this voter has many things to learn in the way of casting competent votes. This vote is a total disservice to both Taj and Hayd.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 2:37:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 1:31:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Virtually every single thing about this RFD was wrong, and this voter has many things to learn in the way of casting competent votes. This vote is a total disservice to both Taj and Hayd.
"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
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:40:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 1:46:30 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM, Bob13 wrote:
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

This summary ignores my argument that although it would spawn more gunsmiths to work illegally, their production rate is extremely slim. They can only produce a few weapons are year, of which they will have to devote their career to. They thus *have* to charge high prices for these firearms in order to make a living, and criminals can't afford those since they are poor, or they are at least deterred from purchasing them. You don't seem to consider that in your calculation which isn't so good given it makes me win the argument.

When did you say in the debate that gunsmiths can only make a few weapons a year?
Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.

Why would this statistic not apply to everyone? What evidence does Con give that factors present in Philadelphia are not present in the US. The argument that this doesn't apply to everyone is unwarranted and thus shouldn't be considered by you.
He said "I'm more likely to be shot living in Chicago than if I were in Toronto", which is saying that a statistic that's true in one place may not be true in very many other places.
And it definately does counter Con's evidence since if someone is more likely to have violence come to them if they carry a gun than if they don't, Con's argument that guns bring safety is completely negated and brings impact to my side.

You never provided a number that shows exactly how many people get shot because they carry a gun, so I can't weigh it with other impacts. If you can't say exactly how many people get shot because they carried a gun, you haven't negated Con's statistic.
Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.

Con addressed two factors: income equality and poverty. That doesn't come close to covering the 20 other factors that could be the result of the crime that I explained.

Socioeconomic factors and gun laws are the main differences between the US and the UK that determine crime rates. The others are insignificant or irrelevant.
Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

I also argued that banning guns would save more money than it would take, thus negating this argument and bringing impact to my side. You didn't address this

I agree, I should have mentioned that. Con gave you a little lesson in economics that disproved your argument. For future reference, money that gets spent doesn't just disappear.
Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Con's rebuttal there completely ignores accidents and suicides since those don't have to do with obeying the law.

You didn't mention that in the debate.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 1:31:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Virtually every single thing about this RFD was wrong, and this voter has many things to learn in the way of casting competent votes. This vote is a total disservice to both Taj and Hayd.

Care to explain and give some helpful feedback? Saying my voting skills are bad won't make them any better.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 12:22:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:40:09 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 1:46:30 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM, Bob13 wrote:
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

This summary ignores my argument that although it would spawn more gunsmiths to work illegally, their production rate is extremely slim. They can only produce a few weapons are year, of which they will have to devote their career to. They thus *have* to charge high prices for these firearms in order to make a living, and criminals can't afford those since they are poor, or they are at least deterred from purchasing them. You don't seem to consider that in your calculation which isn't so good given it makes me win the argument.

When did you say in the debate that gunsmiths can only make a few weapons a year?

Round 4,

"Con argues that people have made firearms privately before without citing a single instance. This isn"t true because firearms require manufacturing to make. Homemade firearms take *extreme* skill and time to gather all of the resources needed and have special tools to craft the barrel, and special tools to have the bullet fit perfectly in the barrel. All of this requires factories, making homemade firearms will result in those firearms being of very low quality and thus not dangerous. Even if an effective firearm is able to be manufactured privately it will take incredibly long amounts of time, cost to gather the resources, and skill to craft it. The creator thus has to charge a high price of it which would deter criminals from purchasing it, and this would be rare, thus still significantly decreasing the new income of firearms in the market thus raising prices of firearms and deterring criminals from getting them."

Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.

Why would this statistic not apply to everyone? What evidence does Con give that factors present in Philadelphia are not present in the US. The argument that this doesn't apply to everyone is unwarranted and thus shouldn't be considered by you.

He said "I'm more likely to be shot living in Chicago than if I were in Toronto", which is saying that a statistic that's true in one place may not be true in very many other places.

Are you more likely to be shot while carrying a gun in Chicago than in Toronto. The statistic didn't have to do with overall liklihood of being shot, it had to do with liklihood of being shot if you are carrying a gun vs. if you aren't carrying a gun. Whether you are more likely to be shot in one city vs. the other is irrelevent as it has nothing to do with the gun carrying relationship.

And it definately does counter Con's evidence since if someone is more likely to have violence come to them if they carry a gun than if they don't, Con's argument that guns bring safety is completely negated and brings impact to my side.

You never provided a number that shows exactly how many people get shot because they carry a gun, so I can't weigh it with other impacts. If you can't say exactly how many people get shot because they carried a gun, you haven't negated Con's statistic.

Yes it does. As long as more people are shot by carrying a gun than are prevented by carrying a gun, I win. My statistic shows exactly that, people are 4.5 times more likely to be shot. It negates the argument

Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.

Con addressed two factors: income equality and poverty. That doesn't come close to covering the 20 other factors that could be the result of the crime that I explained.

Don't you think education level has a huge affect on crime. What about healthcare. What about employment rate, and culture? What about drug prevalence and law enforcement? Those are all extremely relevent. And regardless, you don't get to make the argument for the debater that those factors wouldn't affect crime

Socioeconomic factors and gun laws are the main differences between the US and the UK that determine crime rates. The others are insignificant or irrelevant.
Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

I also argued that banning guns would save more money than it would take, thus negating this argument and bringing impact to my side. You didn't address this

I agree, I should have mentioned that. Con gave you a little lesson in economics that disproved your argument. For future reference, money that gets spent doesn't just disappear.
Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Con's rebuttal there completely ignores accidents and suicides since those don't have to do with obeying the law.

You didn't mention that in the debate.

I don't have to. Its blatantly wrong, and as a judge you cannot assume that a rebuttal affects all arguments in the debate for no reason and fault me for not telling you not to do so in the debate. Its common sense that that would be true, and it doesn't need to be said in the debate for the judge to weigh arguments that way
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 12:33:27 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 12:22:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:40:09 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 1:46:30 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM, Bob13 wrote:
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

This summary ignores my argument that although it would spawn more gunsmiths to work illegally, their production rate is extremely slim. They can only produce a few weapons are year, of which they will have to devote their career to. They thus *have* to charge high prices for these firearms in order to make a living, and criminals can't afford those since they are poor, or they are at least deterred from purchasing them. You don't seem to consider that in your calculation which isn't so good given it makes me win the argument.

When did you say in the debate that gunsmiths can only make a few weapons a year?

Round 4,

"Con argues that people have made firearms privately before without citing a single instance. This isn"t true because firearms require manufacturing to make. Homemade firearms take *extreme* skill and time to gather all of the resources needed and have special tools to craft the barrel, and special tools to have the bullet fit perfectly in the barrel. All of this requires factories, making homemade firearms will result in those firearms being of very low quality and thus not dangerous. Even if an effective firearm is able to be manufactured privately it will take incredibly long amounts of time, cost to gather the resources, and skill to craft it. The creator thus has to charge a high price of it which would deter criminals from purchasing it, and this would be rare, thus still significantly decreasing the new income of firearms in the market thus raising prices of firearms and deterring criminals from getting them."

You never said at any point that they would only make a few weapons a year.
Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.

Why would this statistic not apply to everyone? What evidence does Con give that factors present in Philadelphia are not present in the US. The argument that this doesn't apply to everyone is unwarranted and thus shouldn't be considered by you.

He said "I'm more likely to be shot living in Chicago than if I were in Toronto", which is saying that a statistic that's true in one place may not be true in very many other places.

Are you more likely to be shot while carrying a gun in Chicago than in Toronto. The statistic didn't have to do with overall liklihood of being shot, it had to do with liklihood of being shot if you are carrying a gun vs. if you aren't carrying a gun. Whether you are more likely to be shot in one city vs. the other is irrelevent as it has nothing to do with the gun carrying relationship.

Again, Philadelphia isn't representative of the entire country.
And it definately does counter Con's evidence since if someone is more likely to have violence come to them if they carry a gun than if they don't, Con's argument that guns bring safety is completely negated and brings impact to my side.

You never provided a number that shows exactly how many people get shot because they carry a gun, so I can't weigh it with other impacts. If you can't say exactly how many people get shot because they carried a gun, you haven't negated Con's statistic.

Yes it does. As long as more people are shot by carrying a gun than are prevented by carrying a gun, I win. My statistic shows exactly that, people are 4.5 times more likely to be shot. It negates the argument

You didn't mention the total number of people. That's the only thing that could refute Con's argument.
Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.

Con addressed two factors: income equality and poverty. That doesn't come close to covering the 20 other factors that could be the result of the crime that I explained.

Don't you think education level has a huge affect on crime. What about healthcare. What about employment rate, and culture? What about drug prevalence and law enforcement? Those are all extremely relevent.
And they're also socioeconomic factors.
And regardless, you don't get to make the argument for the debater that those factors wouldn't affect crime

Socioeconomic factors and gun laws are the main differences between the US and the UK that determine crime rates. The others are insignificant or irrelevant.
Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

I also argued that banning guns would save more money than it would take, thus negating this argument and bringing impact to my side. You didn't address this

I agree, I should have mentioned that. Con gave you a little lesson in economics that disproved your argument. For future reference, money that gets spent doesn't just disappear.
Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Con's rebuttal there completely ignores accidents and suicides since those don't have to do with obeying the law.

You didn't mention that in the debate.

I don't have to. Its blatantly wrong, and as a judge you cannot assume that a rebuttal affects all arguments in the debate for no reason and fault me for not telling you not to do so in the debate. Its common sense that that would be true, and it doesn't need to be said in the debate for the judge to weigh arguments that way

Then I could also say that "Law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns" is a blatantly false statement and use that to explain why you lost.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 12:38:54 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 12:33:27 AM, Bob13 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 12:22:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 11:40:09 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 1:46:30 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:37:26 AM, Bob13 wrote:
Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. This was a successful argument for Con, as it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

This summary ignores my argument that although it would spawn more gunsmiths to work illegally, their production rate is extremely slim. They can only produce a few weapons are year, of which they will have to devote their career to. They thus *have* to charge high prices for these firearms in order to make a living, and criminals can't afford those since they are poor, or they are at least deterred from purchasing them. You don't seem to consider that in your calculation which isn't so good given it makes me win the argument.

When did you say in the debate that gunsmiths can only make a few weapons a year?

Round 4,

"Con argues that people have made firearms privately before without citing a single instance. This isn"t true because firearms require manufacturing to make. Homemade firearms take *extreme* skill and time to gather all of the resources needed and have special tools to craft the barrel, and special tools to have the bullet fit perfectly in the barrel. All of this requires factories, making homemade firearms will result in those firearms being of very low quality and thus not dangerous. Even if an effective firearm is able to be manufactured privately it will take incredibly long amounts of time, cost to gather the resources, and skill to craft it. The creator thus has to charge a high price of it which would deter criminals from purchasing it, and this would be rare, thus still significantly decreasing the new income of firearms in the market thus raising prices of firearms and deterring criminals from getting them."

You never said at any point that they would only make a few weapons a year.

bold

Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro says that people in Philadelphia who own firearms are more likely to be shot than people who don't, but Con pointed out that the statistic doesn't apply to everyone and it does nothing to counter Con's evidence.

Why would this statistic not apply to everyone? What evidence does Con give that factors present in Philadelphia are not present in the US. The argument that this doesn't apply to everyone is unwarranted and thus shouldn't be considered by you.

He said "I'm more likely to be shot living in Chicago than if I were in Toronto", which is saying that a statistic that's true in one place may not be true in very many other places.

Are you more likely to be shot while carrying a gun in Chicago than in Toronto. The statistic didn't have to do with overall liklihood of being shot, it had to do with liklihood of being shot if you are carrying a gun vs. if you aren't carrying a gun. Whether you are more likely to be shot in one city vs. the other is irrelevent as it has nothing to do with the gun carrying relationship.

Again, Philadelphia isn't representative of the entire country.
And it definately does counter Con's evidence since if someone is more likely to have violence come to them if they carry a gun than if they don't, Con's argument that guns bring safety is completely negated and brings impact to my side.

You never provided a number that shows exactly how many people get shot because they carry a gun, so I can't weigh it with other impacts. If you can't say exactly how many people get shot because they carried a gun, you haven't negated Con's statistic.

Yes it does. As long as more people are shot by carrying a gun than are prevented by carrying a gun, I win. My statistic shows exactly that, people are 4.5 times more likely to be shot. It negates the argument

You didn't mention the total number of people. That's the only thing that could refute Con's argument.
Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.
Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Another success for Con.

Con addressed two factors: income equality and poverty. That doesn't come close to covering the 20 other factors that could be the result of the crime that I explained.

Don't you think education level has a huge affect on crime. What about healthcare. What about employment rate, and culture? What about drug prevalence and law enforcement? Those are all extremely relevent.
And they're also socioeconomic factors.
And regardless, you don't get to make the argument for the debater that those factors wouldn't affect crime

Socioeconomic factors and gun laws are the main differences between the US and the UK that determine crime rates. The others are insignificant or irrelevant.
Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.
Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

I also argued that banning guns would save more money than it would take, thus negating this argument and bringing impact to my side. You didn't address this

I agree, I should have mentioned that. Con gave you a little lesson in economics that disproved your argument. For future reference, money that gets spent doesn't just disappear.
Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.
Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Con's rebuttal there completely ignores accidents and suicides since those don't have to do with obeying the law.

You didn't mention that in the debate.

I don't have to. Its blatantly wrong, and as a judge you cannot assume that a rebuttal affects all arguments in the debate for no reason and fault me for not telling you not to do so in the debate. Its common sense that that would be true, and it doesn't need to be said in the debate for the judge to weigh arguments that way

Then I could also say that "Law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns" is a blatantly false statement and use that to explain why you lost.
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:23:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Hayd, thank you for respectfully responding to my RFD. I appreciate that you are willing to tell me how to improve my voting.

Due to a lot of criticism, I will be rewriting my RFD sometime in the next few days.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:23:30 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Hayd, thank you for respectfully responding to my RFD. I appreciate that you are willing to tell me how to improve my voting.

Due to a lot of criticism, I will be rewriting my RFD sometime in the next few days.

<3
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 12:58:05 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:23:30 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Hayd, thank you for respectfully responding to my RFD. I appreciate that you are willing to tell me how to improve my voting.

Due to a lot of criticism, I will be rewriting my RFD sometime in the next few days.

Your RFD should be removed, entirely. Your vote was wrong, for the wrong reasons.
Tsar of DDO
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 7:17:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Hayd vs. Tajshar2k: The United States ought to ban firearms.
http://www.debate.org...

RFD:
Pro's first contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of suicides.

Pro cites various statistics, eventually concluding that a firearm ban would save 18,104 lives from suicide each year. Con says that a firearm ban would still allow people to commit suicide via other methods, but he concedes to Pro's statements in the final round when he weighs impacts. Pro wins this argument.

Pro's second contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of gun-related accidents.

Pro cites 15,000-19,000 deaths per year from gun-related accidents. Con corrects that statistic which is actually 505, and Pro admits his mistake. Pro says that injuries still have impact, and Con concedes that the accidents happen but fails to explain how a firearm ban would not reduce the number of these accidents, so Pro wins this argument as well.

Pro's third contention: Banning firearms would reduce deaths from crime.

Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. Con wins this argument, and it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

Con's first contention: Firearms are used in self-defense.

Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro cites a statistic that shows that people in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot if they carry a gun. Con points out that the statistic wouldn't hold true in every place in the country. Regardless of whether that is true, Pro's argument can't be weighed as an impact. He didn't give any number to show that the number of people who get shot because they carried a gun is higher than the number that use a gun in self-defense, so there's no way to explain reasonably that his statement refuted Con's statistic.

Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.

Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Since socioeconomic differences are the main factors other than gun laws that determine crime rates, it is extremely unlikely that the correlation is false. Con wins this argument.

Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.

Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.

Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Conclusion

According to Pro's arguments that Con conceded to, 18,609 lives would be saved each year by a firearm ban, in addition to 15,000-19,000 injuries prevented.
According to Con's arguments, 235,000 people would die each year as a result of a gun ban, in addition to 103,000 property crimes that could have been prevented by use of a firearm.
Con has proven that a firearm ban would take more lives than it would save, and it would also harm the economy. Pro's objection of "Lives have more impact" has lost relevance because Con has proven that keeping firearms legal would save more lives.
Con clearly wins.
I don't have a signature. :-)
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 7:17:27 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Hayd vs. Tajshar2k: The United States ought to ban firearms.
http://www.debate.org...

RFD:
Pro's first contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of suicides.

Pro cites various statistics, eventually concluding that a firearm ban would save 18,104 lives from suicide each year. Con says that a firearm ban would still allow people to commit suicide via other methods, but he concedes to Pro's statements in the final round when he weighs impacts. Pro wins this argument.

Pro's second contention: Banning firearms would reduce the number of gun-related accidents.

Pro cites 15,000-19,000 deaths per year from gun-related accidents. Con corrects that statistic which is actually 505, and Pro admits his mistake. Pro says that injuries still have impact, and Con concedes that the accidents happen but fails to explain how a firearm ban would not reduce the number of these accidents, so Pro wins this argument as well.

Pro's third contention: Banning firearms would reduce deaths from crime.

Pro argues that making guns illegal would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain one, forcing them to use less lethal weapons or to not commit a crime at all. Con responds by saying that the black market would flourish, allowing criminals to own guns while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Pro claims that a firearm ban would reduce gun manufacturing, but as Con said, it would only increase the demand for more gunsmiths that would work illegally. Con wins this argument, and it included the discussion of his contention on the black market.

Con's first contention: Firearms are used in self-defense.

Con states that guns are used by citizens 235,700 times to defend themselves from violent crime and 103,000 times to defend themselves from property crime. Pro cites a statistic that shows that people in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot if they carry a gun. Con points out that the statistic wouldn't hold true in every place in the country. Regardless of whether that is true, Pro's argument can't be weighed as an impact. He didn't give any number to show that the number of people who get shot because they carried a gun is higher than the number that use a gun in self-defense, so there's no way to explain reasonably that his statement refuted Con's statistic.

Con's second contention: Firearm bans in the past have led to increased crime.

Con cites examples of gun bans in Washington, DC and the UK which were followed by spikes in homicide rates. Pro claims that Con can't prove a correlation because homicide rates are affected by many other factors, but Con explains that gun bans had similar results in the UK and the US despite socioeconomic differences. Since socioeconomic differences are the main factors other than gun laws that determine crime rates, it is extremely unlikely that the correlation is false. Con wins this argument.

Con's third contention: Banning firearms would harm the economy.

Con cites the number of jobs created by the firearms industry as well as other economic benefits. Pro says that lives have a greater impact, but I will discuss that in the conclusion of my RFD.

Con's final contention: Banning firearms is undemocratic.

Con explains that since 90% of Americans oppose a firearm ban, the government ignoring them would be tyranny and citizens would likely not comply. Pro states that they would abide by the law because they are law-abiding, but Con points out the fallacy in that statement when he says that if they are law-abiding, a gun ban wouldn't be necessary. This argument was successful for Con.

Conclusion

According to Pro's arguments that Con conceded to, 18,609 lives would be saved each year by a firearm ban, in addition to 15,000-19,000 injuries prevented.
According to Con's arguments, 235,000 people would die each year as a result of a gun ban, in addition to 103,000 property crimes that could have been prevented by use of a firearm.
Con has proven that a firearm ban would take more lives than it would save, and it would also harm the economy. Pro's objection of "Lives have more impact" has lost relevance because Con has proven that keeping firearms legal would save more lives.
Con clearly wins.

This is still a laughable disaster, which is itself an argument for disbanding the "voter's union."
Tsar of DDO