Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Vote moderation report
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 10:48:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since the report and the RFD are too long to fit into the comments section of the debate, I'm using the forum for that purpose.
>Reported vote: Philocat// Mod action: NOT Removed<
RFD part 1 Correlation/causation
This was a messy part of this debate, since one cannot cogently isolate the variable of gun control among all the other variables such as population density, ethnic population, social values and so on. Hence I do not believe this back-and-forth was helpful to the debate. Pro did present examples of positive correlations between gun control and crime, but Con is right in stating that no state is similar enough to make an adequate causal connection between the two variables. Overall, I judge this sub-debate to be a draw, with no debater making a sufficient case to establish causation.
RFD part 2 Effects of gun control
This is where the good debating was. Pro instigated his main argument that increased gun control would mean that fewer people will be able to defend themselves against criminals.
Such an argument is the mainstay of most pro-gun advocates, and hence it was crucial that Con dismantle it in order for him to win the debate. From what I have read, Con dismantled the argument using the following points:
1. Increased gun control would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns (since it would only screen out potential criminals).
2. His Harvard source provided evidence that most cases of self-defence by a firearm-user were actually illegal and even helped to escalate the violence.
These arguments refute Pro's argument (as reality shows that self-defence isn't actually desirable in this case), therefore Con wins this sub-debate.
This sub-debate amounted to a win by Con, since he provided evidence that further gun control (in the form of background checks) would have prevented several mass-shootings. Whilst Pro attempted to provide evidence of the opposite - that gun ownership could have prevented certain mass-shootings - this is far less cogent because it was not demonstrated that gun ownerships *would* have stopped them. As Con pointed out, psychopaths lack fear and so would be not be deterred by armed guards. In contrast, Con did demonstrate that a more thorough background check *would* have prevented some mass-shootings - and by doing so he affirmed the resolution.
On the whole, the correlation/causation sub-debate amounted to little more than statistical bickering that did not reach any substantial conclusion. Neither Pro or Con could establish that there is a solid (statistical) causal link between crime and gun control.
However, Con could establish a causal link between gun control and mass-shootings on a case-study level, whereas Pro's attempt was far less conclusive.
No where in the debate, did my opponent state that gun control would only screen out potential criminals. So he cannot use that as a reason to award points.
His link was broken the first time, so I was not able to refute against that round. Also, this sources doesn't prove how and where it was illegal.
This debate wasn't about self-defense, it was about proving that gun control didn't reduce crime.Me mearly talking about self-defense was merly a portion of the debate, yet he awarded all 3 points. Him proving that using guns for self defense, doesn't mean strict gun control is the way to go. Like I proved in my Vermont and New Hampshire how the homicide rate is the nations lowest, yet it practically has 0 gun control.
This itself is an assumption, my opponent didn't prove for sure that gun control would have stopped these, and he doesn't explain how strict it should be. Philocat completely ignored my reasoning, and doesn't explain in the RFD, why Con's argument was a better solution than mine.
This conclusion can't be taken into factor, because he didn't explain why my arguments to preventing guns wouldn't work
Therefore, I ask you remove this vote, unless he explains how.
[*Reason for non-removal*] (1) The voter provides his interpretation of most of the major arguments. The report simply seems to have a substantive disagreement with these points. We don't moderate such disagreements. Some of the content of the report should have been argued in the debate.