Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
RFD for gun ownership debate
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 2:16:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Debate is here (http://www.debate.org...). Vote is for bsh1's DDOlympics.
Based on the resolution of this debate, I will assume the burden of proof is split.
R1 - Pro
Pro argues that the first amendment is vague, but that it protects an individual, not collective, right. To prove this, he points to several things. The first is an English language expert, who analyzed the text and found it to protect an individual right. The second is from the writers of the Constitution themselves, who - at least the ones he cited - seem to believe it is an individual right. He argues state constitutions protect the same right with similar language, and when it varies it always protects an individual right. He also notes the Supreme Court has upheld the individual rights model. These are all standard arguments are compelling in presenting the individual rights model.
R2 - Con
Con makes an odd use of his opening round. He accepts the logic of his opponent and instead argues guns are harmful and should not be allowed. However, he simply doesn't present a case for his side. He's advocating a political ban - not a collective right.
R3 - Pro
Pro argues that the view of the Founders supports the individual rights perspective; he also argues why this right exists (which is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand). In fact, most of the rest of his argument is responding to his opponent's arguments for regulations. Again, these are not particularly relevant.
R3 - Con
Con asserts that the opinion of the Founders does not matter. I will assume he is ceding the point to Pro that the Founders did support an individual right to firearms ownership. He argues that, for practical reasons, firearm ownership should be prevented but does cede that "every citizen has the right to bear arms". For that reason, I can pretty much ignore the rest of the debate - he's ceded it to Pro.
Conduct - Neither side did anything to warrant conduct points.
Spelling & Grammar - Neither side had grammar differences warranting spelling points being given.
Convincing arguments - Pro wins due to Con ceding the premise of the debate (individual right to ownership of firearms).
Reliable sources - Both sides used strong sources; Pro's were more topical to the debate premise, but the difference isn't worth giving points over.