Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

RFD: Hayd v. Rask (Gun ban)

Posts: 45,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:10:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I. Resolution

"The United States should enact a nationwide ban on all firearms by the state and federal governments."

II. Burdens

The resolution is normative and thus the burdens are identical; no burden is greater than the other. If this is misunderstood by anyone, refer to the voting guide which is linked on my profile.

To win this debate, PRO must argue that the US should enact a national ban on all firearms which applies on both the state and federal level. CON must argue that the United States should not ban guns in that way. The general issue, though, is whether guns should be banned, and this debate will be evaluated on that basis, rather than with regard to our federal and state government's multivariate intricacies.

III. Arguments

CON: (1) Founding Fathers (the founders believed that guns were important for hunting, self defense, and resistance of tyranny). This is pretty much it.

PRO: (1) Suicide: (gun bans would reduce the amount of suicides, and therefore save lives... although probably not millions, as PRO suggests); (2) Homicide: (homicides would be reduced because guns would be out of the hands of criminals); (3) Accidents: (accidents would be reduced too, for similar reasons).

IV. Clash

Not a lot of direct clash among the cases, but CON responded to PRO's (1) with mostly rhetorical questions and insubstantial warrants, and, curiously, references to cleaning supplies; (2) by claiming that enacting a gun ban would increase the crime rate, which, like the previous rebuttal, didn't really go anywhere for similar reasons (f.y.i. it's just not enough to say "all you have to do is get a metal barrel, put explosive powder in it, and then a projectile. BAM! homemade gun. Then there are other long range weaponry, such as throwing knifes, bows, crossbows, and spears, just to name a few. SO if a criminal can't get a gun, he'll just use a knife. Gut their victims like an animal when they rob them or kill them."); and (3) by saying that guns themselves are not the cause of the harm PRO identified ("Accidents with firearms are caused because people don't know how to handle them.") but he didn't go the additional step of explaining why that's the case, without appeals to things like Murphy's law. It just wasn't persuasive.

PRO rebutted, of course, by saying that (1) due to existing constraints on tyranny, guns are not needed for that purpose; (2) the idea of regular people using guns to fight off the government is idiotic (" Even if the people were to get to the point where they have to take over the government, what chance do they have? It's a few people with some shotguns and rifles against tanks, special operations, advanced missiles, etc. A revolution would only be a bad thing since it will result in a great number of lives lost, as well as an extremely (almost zero) possibility of winning.") which is a compelling point.

The later rounds were painful to read. It was obvious that PRO won, for equally obvious reasons.

V. Outcome

CON failed to offer reasons why guns were necessary to resist tyranny, or even offer any reasons to support his implicit claim of the imminency of that threat. Likewise, CON failed to undermine PRO's impacts with regard to the three cited and aforementioned benefits of banning guns. CON loses; PRO wins.
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 6:09:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I feel like a accomplished something, because I came to the same conclusion for mostly the same reasons. I left a comment because I still can't vote. I was beginning to think that I was being biased because I'm for stricter gun control.
I just wanted to share my joy. Thanks for the confidence boost.