Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

RFD for Gun Ban Debate

whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 1:48:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an RFD for the debate between tajshar2k and Haydl given here: http://www.debate.org...

So... I can't figure out from the arguments given what this debate's supposed to be about, and that's not a good sign. I'll explain what I mean in some overviews before I get into the debate.

OV1) Two rounds

I dislike when debates like this happen where there's only two rounds of actual debate. What results is that the original arguments become only minimally important following the un-countered rebuttals. I'm essentially looking to both of your rebuttals to see how much you managed to turn and take out of your opponent's arguments, and I'm forced to buy anything that's not covered and any even partially effective rebuttals. I think that system offers an opportunity to post some really flippant rebuttals that have easy responses but are effective without them, and I think that comes through in this debate as well. But I'll get to that later.

OV2) The topic

I think the first thing you both have to do is read the topic and recognize what it means. This is not a "should" topic " there should be no discussion of the net benefits of gun bans here. The topic is clearly a fact topic, encouraging both sides to present reasoning for why gun bans are effective within a certain lens. Anything outside of that lens is non-topical. I'll get more into how each side perceives that lens shortly, but it's key for both sides to recognize what the resolution entails and focus on proving the fact true or false.

Pro, in particular, seems to forget this right off the bat, talking about how many people are dependant on guns to make their living. Even using Pro's own lens of reducing violent crime, the question of whether hunters will have sufficient means following such a ban has no bearing on the incidence of such crimes, or at least none was established. And yes, this will become a problem going through the whole debate.

OV3) Defintions

"Effective" is an important word for two reasons.

First, we have to know what the assumptions are behind what's effective.

There's a big problem here, and I think that's made clear in Pro's opening round, though it becomes even clearer by Con's final round. Con starts off the debate by stating in R1 that "We will not be arguing that the government would not be effective in implementing a gun ban (e.g. the people won't concede to it, etc.), we will be arguing that once the gun ban is effectively implemented, it will not be effective in achieving the desired result."

This seemed straightforward to me from the outset. I thought what Con was arguing was that we should assume that law abiding citizens would abid the law, ensuring that there's no question of whether a gun ban can be effectively implemented, but whether that gun ban reduces loss of life. What Con says he was arguing was that it should be assumed that a gun ban is 100% effective, which I suppose is one way to interpret it.

Accepting either answer gives me cognitive dissonance, and that's mainly because neither debater thought to clarify what a gun ban looks like aside from saying that it's a complete ban. If there's some sort of system by which guns are all collected and destroyed, then that needs to be clear. If it's just a ban where those with legal access to guns are essentially forced to surrender them without any of the harms to that process, then that needs to be clear. Pro seems to argue the latter, Con seems to argue the former, and I don't have a reason to buy either one.

Second, we have to know on what scale we're measuring effectiveness.

This is something that both sides try to clarify, though neither makes a particularly convincing case for establishing a metric. Pro just tells me that we're talking about the effect on violent crime rates, something which isn't really supported by his link and just gets asserted. Con tells me that the metric should be whether or not a gun ban saves lives. They're both just assertions without clear support, so the only means I have to decide is that Pro mentioned his in R2, and Con waited until R3. On that basis alone, I side with Pro's view (despite personal disagreement with it). It's basically just punishment for Con not affording the opportunity for Pro to respond to his metric.

OV4) What does it all mean?

So, let's bring this all together. How am I evaluating each individual argument? Through these lenses:

1) How well does each debater support the view that a gun ban is effective?

2) Who best upholds the access to guns under both systems (yes, I'm going to evaluate this debate under both of your views of what the gun ban would look like)?

3) What is the effect of the gun ban on violent crime?

With that, let's finally get into the arguments.

Pro's Contentions:

C1) Gun culture

With a title like this, I really thought this argument was going elsewhere. In fact, the first four sentences seemed to be headed in that direction. How would people in a gun culture respond to the illegalization of gun ownership? Even if people give up their guns, are we seriously supposed to believe that no one's going to have a negative response after their gun is gone?

But that's not where the argument goes. What Pro argues is that hunters would be negatively affected. As I mentioned earlier, that's not a topical outcome. It has absolutely no bearing on the debate, since it has no apparent effect on the incidence of violent crime. So this point disappears.

C2) Little effect in certain states

This is where it really comes in handy to recognize your what metric is important. What does it matter if certain states are basically unaffected? The best this can manage is to show that some states wouldn't have any reduction in the incidence of homicide as a result of a gun ban. That's mitigation, and with only the example of Vermont, it's exceedingly minimal.

But even that effect isn't clear. Con points out that this correlation has nothing to do with the availability of guns, which makes me less likely to accept this argument. It's made worse by the focus on homicide rates instead of violent crime rates.

I'll address this here because it's covered later in the debate by both sides: what does homicide rate have to do with violent crime rate? Both sides make this assumption that an increase or decrease in the number of homicides reflects an increase or decrease in the number of violent crimes. Neither of you contend that that's not the case, so I kind of have to buy it, but I have trouble believing it completely. Are we seriously arguing that a lesser ability to commit homicide means that these same people, who would have engaged in a violent crime with a gun, will no longer commit a violent crime after that gun is removed? Pro's own comparison to Great Britain belies the fault in that argument, since it shows that people will turn to other weapons lacking these.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 1:49:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
C3) Guns are used for self-defense

Probably the most important point in Pro's argument, though honestly, it's not well examined. Once again, the focus is on homicide rates, not on violent crime rates. More problematic is that Pro's not showing any statistics that showcase a reduction in crime resulting from these defensive gun uses. There's this assumption pervading this argument that, so long as defensive gun uses are in effect, they're saving lives and preventing crimes, but that's entirely unclear.

Con doesn't really address this either. He addresses the big numbers Pro is presenting, but not their applicability to the outcome of this debate. Nonetheless, his response does call Pro's numbers into question, and he presents what appears to be more reliable information, since it's focused on response to violent crime and doesn't include any apparent manipulation of statistics. That still leaves us with 235,700 cases of self-defense over 4 years, or roughly 59,000 cases of its being used per year.

I don't particularly love that the most important assumption in this argument isn't addressed, but I can't apply my own views to the situation. Since I'm forced to buy that homicide reductions = violent crime reductions, and since I'm forced to buy that use of self-defense absolutely prevents violent crimes, I'm still forced to buy a pretty large outcome for the debate.

C4) Illegal guns/Pro's of CCW

Obviously, this is the point that's most dependant on my view of the first half of OV3.

If I'm buying that all guns within the U.S. are destroyed, I'm still giving some weight to this argument as a result of outside guns coming in, but it's obviously far reduced.

If I'm buying that only legal gun owners will abide the ban, I'm giving a lot of weight to this argument.

In either case, let's recognize that this is solely mitigation. The argument only shows that people will continue to commit gun-related crimes even after a ban. They already commit most of their crimes with illegal guns, so that doesn't change significantly, meaning that even if I'm buying this wholesale, all it's doing is substantially reducing the amount of prevented violent crimes.

As for the CCW (it's nice to spell out what CCW means rather than just launching into using the acronym), this point really should have been under deterrence where it belongs. The argument appears to be that the possibility that citizens are legally carrying some form of concealed weapon deters violent crime. It's actually the closest Pro gets to showing that gun ownership reduces violent crime, though it's still missing a step or two to explain that violent crimes decreased solely on that basis.

C5) Britain has a higher violent crime than the U.S

This argument is a nice example of correlation vs. causation problems. This potentially shows that violent crime isn't necessarily reduced by the presence of staunch gun control. It's actually the first time we're talking about violent crime rates and not just homicide rates. However, as Con points out, England doesn't represent a total gun ban. It's also unclear that other issues are being controlled for in this comparison (and I can assure you, they aren't), which makes me question whether the comparison can even be made if they had implemented a total gun ban. So this point just comes off as very weak.

Con's Contentions:

C1) Suicides

If we're focused on loss of life, this matters. As I've already explained, though, that metric wasn't introduced explicitly until too late, leaving Pro's as the sole one standing. Since suicide isn't a violent crime, its incidence, whether reduced or not, has no bearing on the outcome of the debate.

C2) Homicide

I've already address the problem with regards to having homicide rate be a stand-in for violent crime rate, but since both of you are engaging in it, I am forced to accept it.

There's just not much offense coming out of this, though. Even if I bought that almost 9,000 murders would be prevented, that's less than the 59,000 coming as a result of deterrence. The numbers are all that matter in this debate because we're talking about rates, not how damaging the violent crime is. I agree that, without guns, the violent crimes that do occur will inflict lesser harms, but I can't ignore that there's violence in the case of any weapon being used, whether it's a gun or a less effective implement. So now I'm not even sure that those 9,000 prevented murders mean a similar reduction in violent crime rates.

I also have to potentially weigh in illegal gun ownership, which brings this number down to a scant few hundred prevented murders.

C3) Accidents

Here we are again. If loss of life was the metric for assessing this debate, this contention would matter. Given that it's not, the contention doesn't appear to factor into the debate. Unless these accidents can be linksed to actual crimes, there's no reason why it does factor.

Conclusion:

So, as you can see, most of both debater's cases just go straight out the window. Most of the arguments each of you makes is contingent on a different debate from the one that you both were supposed to be having.

Nonetheless, the decision becomes rather clear. At least 59,000 violent crimes are prevented every year by the legal ownership of guns. That number could be much larger if we factor in CCWs, but that is at least a nebulous effect due to a lack of casative analysis. Still, that's 59,000 compared to a maximum of 9,000 violent crimes committed. The numbers don't lie, and thus I'm forced to vote Pro.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:34:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 1:49:31 AM, whiteflame wrote:

You nulled all my arguments on the basis that they focused on saving lives, not violent crime. Tajshar2k never established what the intention of the gun ban would be in R1. He defined effective as

Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result

But he never specified the 'intended result'. Tajshar2k based all his arguments off his idea of what the gun ban would be after he had started the debate. Since I was arguing for the gun ban being implemented and Tajshar2k hadn't specified the intention of the ban was, I thought I would be able to choose what the intention would be. So my arguments were based off saving lives, and Tajshar2k's were based off reducing violent crime. You decided which one of us was right not by the circumstances, but my who said it first.

the only means I have to decide is that Pro mentioned his in R2, and Con waited until R3

I did specify in R2, in my concluding statement

Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives, by reducing the amount of homicides, the amount of suicides, and the amount of deaths caused by firearm accidents.

You nulled all my arguments on this false basis. Please explain...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:46:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like this point of view of analysis, re: "effective" rendering a new metric. But Taj *establishes* -- under his C2 and C3 -- that life is the metric for measurement, no? Taj's version of "effective" is articulated there. For example:

Let me take the state of Vermont for example. It's a state that has much less restrictions on guns, and its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000. So, here is evidence that banning guns would not make a huge difference. Vermont is basically a state with 0 gun control, and it's homicide rate its one of the safest in the country. What exactly would be the point of gun bans?

And:

Guns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately two million defensive gun uses occur each year. In other studies it showed that between 800,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses are used per year, which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate. You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occurred were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occurred.

So Taj frequently asserts gun bans aren't effective as they do not save lives, so saving lives is shifted to become the metric for analysis...
"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
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:35:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:34:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/20/2015 1:49:31 AM, whiteflame wrote:

You nulled all my arguments on the basis that they focused on saving lives, not violent crime. Tajshar2k never established what the intention of the gun ban would be in R1. He defined effective as

Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result

But he never specified the 'intended result'. Tajshar2k based all his arguments off his idea of what the gun ban would be after he had started the debate. Since I was arguing for the gun ban being implemented and Tajshar2k hadn't specified the intention of the ban was, I thought I would be able to choose what the intention would be. So my arguments were based off saving lives, and Tajshar2k's were based off reducing violent crime. You decided which one of us was right not by the circumstances, but my who said it first.

the only means I have to decide is that Pro mentioned his in R2, and Con waited until R3

I did specify in R2, in my concluding statement

Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives, by reducing the amount of homicides, the amount of suicides, and the amount of deaths caused by firearm accidents.

You nulled all my arguments on this false basis. Please explain...

First off, it's easy to miss that statement. If you're tacking it onto the very end of your argument, people are going to miss it because you're not making it the framework around which your arguments are built. Someone reading through your argument goes through 3 contentions with no clear idea of how they link to the resolution, and ends up getting a very quick statement of what the objective behind it is. I recognize that I didn't take into account that you'd said it at the end of your R2, but you didn't exactly make it a center stage argument.

Second, it's just as much of an assertion as Pro's is, which means I have no reason to prefer either of them. If you want, I can go back through and figure out the weights of your two arguments, though in that case, Pro will also pick up ground on the basis that he better links his arguments to death tolls than violence. That decision would be closer than this decision, and I'd have to balance both because I'd have no reason to prefer yours or his.

Third, I'd still likely have more reason to prefer Pro's statement of what the objective is, mainly because it at least seems to be supported by the link he gave (which for some reason now just goes to the front page...) It's the only support I get for either of your viewpoints on what the objective is. Even if it's the weakest of the weak, it's still something that's going to tip the scales towards him, and that results in the same outcome. Yes, I recognize that his objective came after R1 and therefore you weren't forced to adhere to it, but you should have argued it directly, or at least touted your own objective as being better for some reason.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:41:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 3:46:39 AM, tejretics wrote:
I like this point of view of analysis, re: "effective" rendering a new metric. But Taj *establishes* -- under his C2 and C3 -- that life is the metric for measurement, no? Taj's version of "effective" is articulated there. For example:

Let me take the state of Vermont for example. It's a state that has much less restrictions on guns, and its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000. So, here is evidence that banning guns would not make a huge difference. Vermont is basically a state with 0 gun control, and it's homicide rate its one of the safest in the country. What exactly would be the point of gun bans?

And:

Guns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately two million defensive gun uses occur each year. In other studies it showed that between 800,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses are used per year, which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate. You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occurred were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occurred.

So Taj frequently asserts gun bans aren't effective as they do not save lives, so saving lives is shifted to become the metric for analysis...

...He also established in his C1 and C2 that an important metric was how many lives it affects, mainly through effects on hunters and their ability to continue doing what they're doing. Within the context of each of his contentions, I can see different reasoning as to what the correct metric is for evaluating the debate. But none of that matters because I get a clear and direct overview from Pro that states exactly what he thinks the metric should be.

I think I'd be inserting my own bias if I ignored that. By selectively looking at a couple of contentions and stating that the metric supported by them is paramount, I'd a) have to ignore his overview that's telling me different, and b) ignore the metrics functioning behind the other contentions. I suppose I could have accepted ALL of the metrics, but that would have made analyzing this incredibly difficult as I wouldn't have any means to determine which metric matters most or even a way to weigh most of the points given under each of them.

You're right that, based on those contentions, I could have come to the conclusion that saving lives was paramount. I just don't think that that's sufficient reason for me to ignore what I'm being told at the top. Pro had an agenda going in, and even though he himself didn't follow it, I think it's most consistent for me to do so.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:46:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:41:06 AM, whiteflame wrote:

That overview he gave regarding "reducing crime" was *itself dependent on lives.* Under suicides, Taj writes:

"...for Con's argument to be effective, he needs to prove that suicide rates are higher than the amount of times guns have been used for self defense by Americans, which is 800,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. If the total murder rate by guns was only 8,855 deaths, then the number of gun sucides is far less than the defensive gun uses."

As outlined in an earlier contention, this number refers to the number of *deaths,* not non-saving lives related crimes. Lives outweigh anything else under Taj's own overview. Taj's overview refers to lives. When he says "crimes," he says life-threatening ones, and you have to measure based on that.
"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
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:03:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:46:20 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:41:06 AM, whiteflame wrote:

That overview he gave regarding "reducing crime" was *itself dependent on lives.* Under suicides, Taj writes:

"...for Con's argument to be effective, he needs to prove that suicide rates are higher than the amount of times guns have been used for self defense by Americans, which is 800,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. If the total murder rate by guns was only 8,855 deaths, then the number of gun sucides is far less than the defensive gun uses."

As outlined in an earlier contention, this number refers to the number of *deaths,* not non-saving lives related crimes. Lives outweigh anything else under Taj's own overview. Taj's overview refers to lives. When he says "crimes," he says life-threatening ones, and you have to measure based on that.

Again, I think he lost track of the framework he himself had set up at the start of his R2. He didn't say in his opening in R2 that reducing violent crime was dependent on reducing loss of lives, though many of his contentions insinuated that the two were one in the same. The extent of the overview is right here:

I think for me to talk about what is effective, I first should tell everybody what the intended result of banning guns are. The main purpose of banning guns is to reduce the violent crime rate that has been plaguing the United States for nearly half a century. So this is what I will base my debate off. Whether gun bans would be effective in reducing the violent crime rate. Y'all can refer to this document(1) Note it says "fight against violence and crime" Not just gun violence

There's no talk about lives, no mixing of what constitutes a violent crime and what constitutes a loss of life. You're trying to base the framework off of what was presented in a couple of contentions, and while I feel that that's a reasonable way to perceive the debate, I think the way I'm perceiving it is just as reasonable. I don't see him ever stating that violent crimes = life-threatening crimes, though both sides sort of assume that that's the case. But even accepting that (and I did - I merely remarked that the two are different and should have been treated as different), my RFD stays almost exactly the same. I still exclude suicide and accidental deaths because neither of those are directly linked to crimes (though both could have been). I still exclude Pro's arguments about hunting and I still address the correlation/causation issue the same. So I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here, since it seems to have gone onto a different track now.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:07:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:03:59 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:46:20 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:41:06 AM, whiteflame wrote:

That overview he gave regarding "reducing crime" was *itself dependent on lives.* Under suicides, Taj writes:

"...for Con's argument to be effective, he needs to prove that suicide rates are higher than the amount of times guns have been used for self defense by Americans, which is 800,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. If the total murder rate by guns was only 8,855 deaths, then the number of gun sucides is far less than the defensive gun uses."

As outlined in an earlier contention, this number refers to the number of *deaths,* not non-saving lives related crimes. Lives outweigh anything else under Taj's own overview. Taj's overview refers to lives. When he says "crimes," he says life-threatening ones, and you have to measure based on that.

Again, I think he lost track of the framework he himself had set up at the start of his R2. He didn't say in his opening in R2 that reducing violent crime was dependent on reducing loss of lives, though many of his contentions insinuated that the two were one in the same. The extent of the overview is right here:

I think for me to talk about what is effective, I first should tell everybody what the intended result of banning guns are. The main purpose of banning guns is to reduce the violent crime rate that has been plaguing the United States for nearly half a century. So this is what I will base my debate off. Whether gun bans would be effective in reducing the violent crime rate. Y'all can refer to this document(1) Note it says "fight against violence and crime" Not just gun violence

There's no talk about lives, no mixing of what constitutes a violent crime and what constitutes a loss of life. You're trying to base the framework off of what was presented in a couple of contentions, and while I feel that that's a reasonable way to perceive the debate, I think the way I'm perceiving it is just as reasonable. I don't see him ever stating that violent crimes = life-threatening crimes, though both sides sort of assume that that's the case. But even accepting that (and I did - I merely remarked that the two are different and should have been treated as different), my RFD stays almost exactly the same. I still exclude suicide and accidental deaths because neither of those are directly linked to crimes (though both could have been). I still exclude Pro's arguments about hunting and I still address the correlation/causation issue the same. So I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here, since it seems to have gone onto a different track now.

Your interpretation is fine, but what he means by "violent crime" (regardless of what it *is*) is homicides...
"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
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:08:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:07:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/20/2015 6:03:59 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:46:20 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:41:06 AM, whiteflame wrote:

That overview he gave regarding "reducing crime" was *itself dependent on lives.* Under suicides, Taj writes:

"...for Con's argument to be effective, he needs to prove that suicide rates are higher than the amount of times guns have been used for self defense by Americans, which is 800,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. If the total murder rate by guns was only 8,855 deaths, then the number of gun sucides is far less than the defensive gun uses."

As outlined in an earlier contention, this number refers to the number of *deaths,* not non-saving lives related crimes. Lives outweigh anything else under Taj's own overview. Taj's overview refers to lives. When he says "crimes," he says life-threatening ones, and you have to measure based on that.

Again, I think he lost track of the framework he himself had set up at the start of his R2. He didn't say in his opening in R2 that reducing violent crime was dependent on reducing loss of lives, though many of his contentions insinuated that the two were one in the same. The extent of the overview is right here:

I think for me to talk about what is effective, I first should tell everybody what the intended result of banning guns are. The main purpose of banning guns is to reduce the violent crime rate that has been plaguing the United States for nearly half a century. So this is what I will base my debate off. Whether gun bans would be effective in reducing the violent crime rate. Y'all can refer to this document(1) Note it says "fight against violence and crime" Not just gun violence

There's no talk about lives, no mixing of what constitutes a violent crime and what constitutes a loss of life. You're trying to base the framework off of what was presented in a couple of contentions, and while I feel that that's a reasonable way to perceive the debate, I think the way I'm perceiving it is just as reasonable. I don't see him ever stating that violent crimes = life-threatening crimes, though both sides sort of assume that that's the case. But even accepting that (and I did - I merely remarked that the two are different and should have been treated as different), my RFD stays almost exactly the same. I still exclude suicide and accidental deaths because neither of those are directly linked to crimes (though both could have been). I still exclude Pro's arguments about hunting and I still address the correlation/causation issue the same. So I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here, since it seems to have gone onto a different track now.

Your interpretation is fine, but what he means by "violent crime" (regardless of what it *is*) is homicides...

Considering that that's pretty much exactly how my decision bore out with me just griping about the conflation, I don't think we disagree on that.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:35:08 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:34:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/20/2015 1:49:31 AM, whiteflame wrote:

First off, it's easy to miss that statement. If you're tacking it onto the very end of your argument, people are going to miss it because you're not making it the framework around which your arguments are built. Someone reading through your argument goes through 3 contentions with no clear idea of how they link to the resolution, and ends up getting a very quick statement of what the objective behind it is. I recognize that I didn't take into account that you'd said it at the end of your R2, but you didn't exactly make it a center stage argument.

I made it extremely extremely clear in my conclusion of my entire response of R2 that all my arguments were to back up the assertion of saving lives.

Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives,

I also mentioned this and directed my first two contentions towards the same exact thing.

C1:
By banning guns, you give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the likelihood that they will attempt suicide and save thousands of lives in the process.


C2:

Taking away the murderer"s most effective weapon forces murderer"s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.

I don't specifically spell it out for the audience in C3, but it is implied.

I linked both C1 & C2 to my resolution.

Second, it's just as much of an assertion as Pro's is, which means I have no reason to prefer either of them. If you want, I can go back through and figure out the weights of your two arguments, though in that case, Pro will also pick up ground on the basis that he better links his arguments to death tolls than violence. That decision would be closer than this decision, and I'd have to balance both because I'd have no reason to prefer yours or his.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Pro never told me what the intention of the gun ban would be in R1, so I chose what the intention would be since I was arguing for the motion. If you are saying that you have no basis on which side to judge over, intention being saving lives, or intention being reducing violent crime, then since Pro instigated the debate but didn't specify during R1, since I was arguing for the gun ban, I should be able to decide what the gun ban would be on. But you can't choose which one based on who said it first, even though I have supplied sufficient evidence that I said it many times in R2, contrary to your RFD. Which is the basis on which you nulled all my arguments, so obviously you need to reevaluate. If you meant that both are assertions in that the topic is being asserted, of course it is! Thats the point of a resolution, an assertion that Pro will back up and Con will attack, thats the point of a debate!

Third, I'd still likely have more reason to prefer Pro's statement of what the objective is, mainly because it at least seems to be supported by the link he gave (which for some reason now just goes to the front page...) It's the only support I get for either of your viewpoints on what the objective is. Even if it's the weakest of the weak, it's still something that's going to tip the scales towards him, and that results in the same outcome. Yes, I recognize that his objective came after R1 and therefore you weren't forced to adhere to it, but you should have argued it directly, or at least touted your own objective as being better for some reason.

If I would have argued it directly then I would have been abandoning my resolution for his, inn which I should have had the final say in. I also think I did confront his arguments directly, as far as the point we are talking about. I mainly dismissed some of Pro's arguments for the reason of not being topical because they reffered to a gun ban not being implemented effectively. If a gun ban was effectively implemented, then all guns in america would be 100% gone. If this is true, almost all of Pro's R3 response is worthless and some of his R2 arguments.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:00:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:40:16 PM, Hayd wrote:

I made it extremely extremely clear in my conclusion of my entire response of R2 that all my arguments were to back up the assertion of saving lives.

Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives,

You're missing my point. By putting it at the end of your opening arguments, it appears as an afterthought. You're not framing your arguments within that objective from the outset, so I'm reading through your arguments and wondering the entire time what metric makes sense for evaluating them. My point is: make it front and center. It's a very important point of disagreement between you and your opponent, and yet it only gets a brief mention at the end of your opening round where it can easily be missed.

I also mentioned this and directed my first two contentions towards the same exact thing.

C1:
By banning guns, you give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the likelihood that they will attempt suicide and save thousands of lives in the process.


C2:

Taking away the murderer"s most effective weapon forces murderer"s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.

I don't specifically spell it out for the audience in C3, but it is implied.

I linked both C1 & C2 to my resolution.

Both your C1 and C2 apply to saving lives, I'm not contending that they don't. Nor am I contending that there's no link to the resolution. I'm saying that you needed to establish a solid metric early in your first round for evaluating arguments in this debate. The fact that both your C1 and C2 emphasized saving lives doesn't mean that that's the most effective metric for evaluating the resolution, nor does simply stating that those are your outcomes make it a clear endorsement of that metric.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Pro never told me what the intention of the gun ban would be in R1, so I chose what the intention would be since I was arguing for the motion. If you are saying that you have no basis on which side to judge over, intention being saving lives, or intention being reducing violent crime, then since Pro instigated the debate but didn't specify during R1, since I was arguing for the gun ban, I should be able to decide what the gun ban would be on. But you can't choose which one based on who said it first, even though I have supplied sufficient evidence that I said it many times in R2, contrary to your RFD. Which is the basis on which you nulled all my arguments, so obviously you need to reevaluate. If you meant that both are assertions in that the topic is being asserted, of course it is! Thats the point of a resolution, an assertion that Pro will back up and Con will attack, thats the point of a debate!

I think you have an odd view of how I should be evaluating what the preferred metric is. Yes, the lack of an established metric in round 1 leaves the door open for debate over what the best metric is, but just because you were Pro in this debate doesn't mean I'm going to automatically favor whatever metric you provide.

My point here, and I think you're missing it again, is that I'd have to evaluate it under both metrics. I've already evaluated this debate under two separate views of what the gun ban actually looks like, so this would increase the total number of evaluations I have to make to 4. If you'd like, I could do that. But as I was pointing out, both ways I evaluated this debate were substantially in Con's favor. I can tell just from looking over the numbers that evaluation based on the other two metrics is going to be closer, but the result will probably be the same because these two were slanted highly in Con's favor. He'd have to lose on both, and then any tiebreaker I'd do would favor the one who's clearly winning more often, which is almost certainly him.

If I would have argued it directly then I would have been abandoning my resolution for his, inn which I should have had the final say in. I also think I did confront his arguments directly, as far as the point we are talking about. I mainly dismissed some of Pro's arguments for the reason of not being topical because they reffered to a gun ban not being implemented effectively. If a gun ban was effectively implemented, then all guns in america would be 100% gone. If this is true, almost all of Pro's R3 response is worthless and some of his R2 arguments.

...Arguing his version of the metrics by which the debate should be evaluated doesn't abandon anything. You're giving reasons why your view (that saving lives is paramount) is the better way of evaluating it. I can even give you the logic in two sentences:

We all recognize that taking away a specific type of weapon doesn't remove the desire to commit a crime, as it only alters the capacity to do harm. Since all we're doing in this debate is discussing the removal of a type of weapon, we should determine the outcome based on reduced degree of harm rather than assessing its effects on overall crime rates.

If anything like that had appeared in your final round, this could have been a very different decision. It's about touting your view on the metric by which this debate should have been judged, not about giving into his.

And you're getting off topic. I addressed the issue of whether the gun ban would be wholly effective in my RFD as well, and evaluated the debate both through the lens of absolute effectiveness and partial effectiveness. In both cases, my view was that you lost. If you have a reason why that's faulty, then we can discuss it. If not, then let's stick to the issue at hand, which is whether or not saving lives should have been the metric by which I evaluated this debate.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:37:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:00:00 PM, whiteflame wrote:
let's stick to the issue at hand, which is whether or not saving lives should have been the metric by which I evaluated this debate.

I don't know...the only reason I have is that since the instigator did not specify in R1, it became moot. And since I was supporting the gun ban, I thought I should have say in what it would be, me and Tajshar2k are even there, since neither of us has reason over the other to say that our resolution is right. So like you said, you need to evaluate the arguments from two perspectives, which is what you did. All three of my contentions showed loss of life via guns, taking away guns would save lives. If you look at Tajshar2k's contentions, from his perspective of violent crime, gun culture is irrelevant, Vermont is causation vs correlation and null, guns for self-defense I confronted directly and proved false because of 0.8 statistic, but is still applicable, illegal guns/CCW is worthless because it goes against an already agreed upon condition, that the gun ban would be effectively implemented, and Britain gun control is irrelevent because of causation vs. correlation and gun control instead of gun ban. Even from tajshar2k's perpective, only one of his arguments is relevant, one that I confronted directly and partially negated, while from my perspective, all of them are relevant and impactful. Tajshar2k's entire rebuttal of my arguments is tied to the gun ban not being effectively implemented. So your left with from both perspectives, all of mine relevant and impactful, and tajshar2k has one that is partially impactfull, yet in your RFD you took tajshar2k's perspective and said all my arguments are null because they weren't from tajshar2k's perspective. You say this because I didn't mention my view in contrast to tajshar2k's until R3, when I have shown that I did actaully mention it at the end of almost all my contentions and at the end of my resonse. I hope my rant made sense...I feel this conversation would be more effective over GHangout...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:44:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:37:50 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/20/2015 6:00:00 PM, whiteflame wrote:
let's stick to the issue at hand, which is whether or not saving lives should have been the metric by which I evaluated this debate.

I don't know...the only reason I have is that since the instigator did not specify in R1, it became moot. And since I was supporting the gun ban, I thought I should have say in what it would be, me and Tajshar2k are even there, since neither of us has reason over the other to say that our resolution is right. So like you said, you need to evaluate the arguments from two perspectives, which is what you did. All three of my contentions showed loss of life via guns, taking away guns would save lives. If you look at Tajshar2k's contentions, from his perspective of violent crime, gun culture is irrelevant, Vermont is causation vs correlation and null, guns for self-defense I confronted directly and proved false because of 0.8 statistic, but is still applicable, illegal guns/CCW is worthless because it goes against an already agreed upon condition, that the gun ban would be effectively implemented, and Britain gun control is irrelevent because of causation vs. correlation and gun control instead of gun ban. Even from tajshar2k's perpective, only one of his arguments is relevant, one that I confronted directly and partially negated, while from my perspective, all of them are relevant and impactful. Tajshar2k's entire rebuttal of my arguments is tied to the gun ban not being effectively implemented. So your left with from both perspectives, all of mine relevant and impactful, and tajshar2k has one that is partially impactfull, yet in your RFD you took tajshar2k's perspective and said all my arguments are null because they weren't from tajshar2k's perspective. You say this because I didn't mention my view in contrast to tajshar2k's until R3, when I have shown that I did actaully mention it at the end of almost all my contentions and at the end of my resonse. I hope my rant made sense...I feel this conversation would be more effective over GHangout...

We can discuss it in the hangout if you like - I'll be on the DDO hangout momentarily, so you can hop on as well.

The problem is that I do think tajshar2k supported his perspective, albeit very lightly. It was the only support either of you gave for your metrics. I already admitted that I missed that you took that stance in R2, and explained why it was easily missed, which I think it something you can take away from this as a way to improve on future debates like it. I've admitted that, in that respect, I was wrong. But I've also stated that it doesn't change my evaluation of the debate much. I can go through how I would have evaluated your points under your metric if you'd like, but the result appears to be much the same, just more convoluted. To make a long story short, this isn't just a game of who won the most contentions solidly. It's about impacts, and I don't see you beating his, even with the 0.8% applied.