Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

RFD: Hayd v. TUF (Gun Ban)

YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 11:32:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I. Resolution

http://www.debate.org...

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

II. Burdens

Equal burdens, normative resolution.

III. Arguments

a. CON:

(1) "A ban is not a solution to violence." (Banning guns does not stop crime, and statistics support this. Statistics also suggest that private gun ownership is correlated in some cases with less crime. Banning guns will not necessarily reduce deaths or violence, and could cause more of it.);

(2) There are better alternatives to banning guns. (Among the other and better options, registrations and increased measures of gun control might balance societal interests which compete with one another; increase background checks, prevent the criminally insane from getting guns; child proof them, too.).

b. PRO:

(1) Suicides: If guns were banned, suicides would be reduced. (Suicides dropped across the board when people had less gun access, and this would save many lives.);

(2) Homicides: Enacting a gun ban would really decrease the amount of instances of homicides. (Less means to commit violent crime, therefore less crime.)

(3) Accidents: Banning guns would reduce accidents with guns. (There's a real problem with gun accidents, and getting them out of people's houses would eliminate that problem.)

IV. Clash

Con says that the magnitude of the risk from suicides is less substantial than the risk of banning all guns. He has some evidence to support it, but it's loose. Con takes issue with the practicality of actually getting guns out of criminal's hands, so the homicide point is dubious. CON says that some accidents can be avoided by certain safety measures, some of which he articulates in the form of a counterplan.

PRO says that more suffering is prevented by reducing the number of suicides, due to the impact there being broader than just the person who killed themselves, but the impact incurred by that person's social circle. PRO takes issue with CON's source on the point about guns' ban not necessarily reducing violence related to gun ownership. PRO says this claim has no source. PRO says that CON's counterplans are not going to sufficiently protect society's interest in safety, for the purpose of furthering his accident argument.

V. Outcome

Pretty good debate although the gun topic is not something I really care to debate. Fairly close too. The issue was who could make the best case for or against a national gun ban, and PRO gives me some individual impacts and some societal impacts. I think it comes down to who gives me the best case scenario for societal interests.

CON's point regarding constitutional rights should have been explored more because that may have shifted the net good voting factor here more in his favor. The word "constitution" only appears three times in the debate entirely. CON's point was: "This way constitutional values can keep their integrity, civilians have some semblance of peace and mind rather than none, and accidents are more likely avoided." The reason is because even if I can accept CON's counterplan that some safety measures can be put in place, I need something more than additional safety measures to vote for him on the issue of societal good. To that end, CON tells me at most that some violence and some accidents will be reduced. Ok, then the issue becomes who is going to reduce it more, and PRO will reduce violence and accidents more than CON.

The "best of both worlds approach," though, doesn't reduce the number of suicides either. CON didn't really give me a safety measure that keeps people from killing themselves with guns less, and where CON tells me that people might go ahead and kill themselves anyway but doesn't give me some evidence to believe that (as would be required for me to be persuaded by his point, and which would have then shifted the onus back onto PRO), then PRO is carrying that point too.

So I vote PRO, although it was not an easy victory for him, and I can reasonably see other debaters giving it to CON. This is a very close debate, and more votes should be cast to ensure that both debaters get a fair shake of it. I recommend thett3, for that purpose.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:41:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Thanks for the RFD. If didn't go into much more detail on the constitutional values argument because it didn't feel it would be a strong argument or that it would work against me. Was considering it several times but also just didn't think I could confidently make a good argument for it.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.

So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world. On the matter of suicide, a conscious effort to kill one self was under-taken. I am not particularly moved that for some reason an immediately final solution would not later be found. This point becomes even more salient: "Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen"s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm."

If the right exists, there is no reason to impede it via specific tool. Con carries this by stating: " If the government has a duty to protect it"s citizens, it should do so in a way that doesn"t violate their freedom of choice", and even grants for a better option: "They can offer free mental therapy programs, or any other such means for help, so long as it is the individual"s choice to attend them.". This puts more options on the table for a suicidal individual, not less.

Moving on to the real meat of all this...

Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.

What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."

Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.

Con carries.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:19:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.


So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world. On the matter of suicide, a conscious effort to kill one self was under-taken. I am not particularly moved that for some reason an immediately final solution would not later be found. This point becomes even more salient: "Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen"s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm."

If the right exists, there is no reason to impede it via specific tool. Con carries this by stating: " If the government has a duty to protect it"s citizens, it should do so in a way that doesn"t violate their freedom of choice", and even grants for a better option: "They can offer free mental therapy programs, or any other such means for help, so long as it is the individual"s choice to attend them.". This puts more options on the table for a suicidal individual, not less.

Moving on to the real meat of all this...

Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.

The reason your RFD is wrong is because you are imposing an unequal burden because you are defaulting to the status quo and as such showing bias for that perspective, and that rang clear throughout your RFD, based on how you are improperly weighing arguments. There is a reasonable perspective for CON's win here but you have not identified it.
Tsar of DDO
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:33:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 3:19:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.


So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world. On the matter of suicide, a conscious effort to kill one self was under-taken. I am not particularly moved that for some reason an immediately final solution would not later be found. This point becomes even more salient: "Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen"s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm."

If the right exists, there is no reason to impede it via specific tool. Con carries this by stating: " If the government has a duty to protect it"s citizens, it should do so in a way that doesn"t violate their freedom of choice", and even grants for a better option: "They can offer free mental therapy programs, or any other such means for help, so long as it is the individual"s choice to attend them.". This puts more options on the table for a suicidal individual, not less.

Moving on to the real meat of all this...

Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.

The reason your RFD is wrong is because you are imposing an unequal burden because you are defaulting to the status quo

The default is inherent to the resolution. The US doesn't have a gun ban. One would have to be enacted. The benefits of that ban are untried, and was argued that no guarantees can be made. It was argued the benefits of such a ban are dubious. Its argued that such a ban would be immediately circumvented, and reasonable example given as to how and why.

and as such showing bias for that perspective, and that rang clear throughout your RFD, based on how you are improperly weighing arguments. There is a reasonable perspective for CON's win here but you have not identified it.

Then for the benefit of the RFD: the continued use of firearms in self defense. With no guarantee of success, and no model to find success by, a ban would not be beneficial. It seems to be my poor wording for not immediately making it so plain.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:49:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 3:33:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/27/2016 3:19:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.


So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world. On the matter of suicide, a conscious effort to kill one self was under-taken. I am not particularly moved that for some reason an immediately final solution would not later be found. This point becomes even more salient: "Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen"s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm."

If the right exists, there is no reason to impede it via specific tool. Con carries this by stating: " If the government has a duty to protect it"s citizens, it should do so in a way that doesn"t violate their freedom of choice", and even grants for a better option: "They can offer free mental therapy programs, or any other such means for help, so long as it is the individual"s choice to attend them.". This puts more options on the table for a suicidal individual, not less.

Moving on to the real meat of all this...

Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.

The reason your RFD is wrong is because you are imposing an unequal burden because you are defaulting to the status quo

The default is inherent to the resolution. The US doesn't have a gun ban. One would have to be enacted. The benefits of that ban are untried, and was argued that no guarantees can be made. It was argued the benefits of such a ban are dubious. Its argued that such a ban would be immediately circumvented, and reasonable example given as to how and why.

This is where you are wrong; the burdens are equal, and there is no greater burden of persuasion on any one side than the other. For further explanation of this, see my voting guide, bsh1's voting guide, or virtually any other voting guide on this site.

and as such showing bias for that perspective, and that rang clear throughout your RFD, based on how you are improperly weighing arguments. There is a reasonable perspective for CON's win here but you have not identified it.

Then for the benefit of the RFD: the continued use of firearms in self defense. With no guarantee of success, and no model to find success by, a ban would not be beneficial. It seems to be my poor wording for not immediately making it so plain.

Again, this doesn't remediate the errors throughout your RFD. The error was in assuming the status quo v. change BOP model.
Tsar of DDO
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:58:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 3:49:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/27/2016 3:33:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/27/2016 3:19:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.


So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world. On the matter of suicide, a conscious effort to kill one self was under-taken. I am not particularly moved that for some reason an immediately final solution would not later be found. This point becomes even more salient: "Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen"s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm."

If the right exists, there is no reason to impede it via specific tool. Con carries this by stating: " If the government has a duty to protect it"s citizens, it should do so in a way that doesn"t violate their freedom of choice", and even grants for a better option: "They can offer free mental therapy programs, or any other such means for help, so long as it is the individual"s choice to attend them.". This puts more options on the table for a suicidal individual, not less.

Moving on to the real meat of all this...

Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.

The reason your RFD is wrong is because you are imposing an unequal burden because you are defaulting to the status quo

The default is inherent to the resolution. The US doesn't have a gun ban. One would have to be enacted. The benefits of that ban are untried, and was argued that no guarantees can be made. It was argued the benefits of such a ban are dubious. Its argued that such a ban would be immediately circumvented, and reasonable example given as to how and why.

This is where you are wrong; the burdens are equal, and there is no greater burden of persuasion on any one side than the other. For further explanation of this, see my voting guide, bsh1's voting guide, or virtually any other voting guide on this site.

and as such showing bias for that perspective, and that rang clear throughout your RFD, based on how you are improperly weighing arguments. There is a reasonable perspective for CON's win here but you have not identified it.

Then for the benefit of the RFD: the continued use of firearms in self defense. With no guarantee of success, and no model to find success by, a ban would not be beneficial. It seems to be my poor wording for not immediately making it so plain.

Again, this doesn't remediate the errors throughout your RFD. The error was in assuming the status quo v. change BOP model.

Thank you for your input.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:59:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.


So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world.

Yet Con never brings this up. You are interjecting your own thoughts into the debate; exactly what you can't do while judging.

On the matter of suicide, a conscious effort to kill one self was under-taken. I am not particularly moved that for some reason an immediately final solution would not later be found. This point becomes even more salient: "Firstly, this is a straw man fallacy because a gun ban would not take away a citizen"s right to commit suicide. Merely not do it with a firearm."

If the right exists, there is no reason to impede it via specific tool. Con carries this by stating: " If the government has a duty to protect it"s citizens, it should do so in a way that doesn"t violate their freedom of choice", and even grants for a better option: "They can offer free mental therapy programs, or any other such means for help, so long as it is the individual"s choice to attend them.". This puts more options on the table for a suicidal individual, not less.

Moving on to the real meat of all this...

Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

Because of my entire case. None of it relied on raw data from other countries...

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

I never argued that taking away a primary murder tool must mean that a murder won't take place. Which is embarrassing for it seems your prime reason for throwing away my argument. I clearly argued that it makes crime less successful.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:04:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:59:32 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sorry to coat tail but, since its up, I figured I might as well use the thread.


So, at the risk of sounding callous: a debate should consist of convincing argument to a viewer and quite simply "accident" and "suicide", coming out the gate are probably some of the least aspects of firearm ownership I would consider to be important. Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world.

Yet Con never brings this up. You are interjecting your own thoughts into the debate; exactly what you can't do while judging.

I didn't want to just come outright and say that, but yes, I agree.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:53:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.

The black market depends on flow of the product, I cited this. Disrupting the flow disrupts the effectiveness of the market then.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

This ignores accidents and suicides. Those are where the majority of lives are. You throw this out in the beginning of your RFD, but these are still lives. You can't just disregard debater's arguments

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 2:14:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 1:53:50 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/27/2016 2:22:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Crime.

Con posts that a ban on guns would not guarantee a reduction in violence, which was well refined that specifically homicide is the target. The two go on to agree that other countries' models of gun violence/homicide really wouldn't apply to the US. This leads me to ponder why Pro feels the model of a ban would be successful: the agreed upon models from other countries aren't applicable.

What am having trouble with Pro's point is that some how less people being killed by guns is okay, more people beating beat up is okay, more people possibly being killed by something other than a gun is okay, and taking away a primary murder tool MUST mean that the murder won't take place.

This is echoed: "Con then says that I have no statistical evidence to prove that people with the intention to kill will choose not to carry it out when there is a gun ban. I never said this would happen".

What will happen, though, are those they intend to murder are disarmed of their most effective means. Not terribly assured that is a great plan, then.

Con even goes on to show from Pro's sources that a blackmarket gun wouldn't be cost prohibitive. A few hundred dollars more for a low quality gun, which when being used against a citizen whom is defending themselves with bats or knives is pretty effective.

On the matter of comparing drugs to guns and the black market, I am not convinced that some how guns would be different, or that import from other countries would change things, there was no evidence presented to that assertion. That in mind, in the US, drugs are... well, assuming you are looking for them, pretty easy to acquire. I fail to see how guns would be different.

The black market depends on flow of the product, I cited this. Disrupting the flow disrupts the effectiveness of the market then.


What is insurmountable was this: "The factor of deterrence my opponent introduces has no evidence supporting it at all, nor does it cover the harms of removing weapons from the hands of those who do not mis-use weapons, while acknowledging mass murderers can still get their hands on them."


Victory conditions:

For Pro to have convinced me, I need to see a model, a plan, a working initiative that demonstrates a disarmed criminal, and a well protected citizenry. It seems what Pro has suggested is an inconvenienced criminal and a disarmed citizenry whose only resort is to engage a criminal element on equal terms. I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm.

This ignores accidents and suicides. Those are where the majority of lives are. You throw this out in the beginning of your RFD, but these are still lives. You can't just disregard debater's arguments

With regards to Con:
The model is already in place with regards to "to the best of all possible worlds", as well as wanting to attempt to come across the table regarding straw purchases and mental competency, and while touched on only briefly, still holds to the Constitution.


Con carries.

You are welcome to challenge the vote. Lord knows it isn't the first time it has happened, and will not be the last.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 2:17:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 2:14:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You are welcome to challenge the vote. Lord knows it isn't the first time it has happened, and will not be the last.

So you aren't willing to discuss your RFD?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 3:40:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 2:17:13 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/28/2016 2:14:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You are welcome to challenge the vote. Lord knows it isn't the first time it has happened, and will not be the last.

So you aren't willing to discuss your RFD?

Thus far your objections are as follows:

"you can't bubble wrap the world."

--Yet Con never brings this up. You are interjecting your own thoughts into the debate; exactly what you can't do while judging.

No, it was not brought up by con, it was addressed by con as baffling.

""Gun accidents are the worst kind of death". I am utterly baffled by this statement. How is a gun death any more senseless, and devoid of purpose than any other accidental death?".

Its an accidental death, the likes of which occur over broad sweeping disciplines, careers, and activities. Holding accident accountable as means for a ban comes off as farcical.

Remember: "If a gun ban helps save thousands of lives, the government has every right to save them; it is its duty to do so.". This means its the duty of the government to bubble wrap the world.

Suicide is foisted into the the realm of the federal by means of a tool, and insist the participant use something inferior with the hopes that when the inferior tool doesn't work, they might change their mind. Con argued that choice is in their hands. Pro argues that option should be taken from them. Again: "But the government inherently has a duty to protect its citizens.". This is the same concept! You are still attempting to protect a person from themselves, this time through conscious action and not merely preventing an accident.

"Because of my entire case. None of it relied on raw data from other countries..."... exactly. There was no model. It was akin to bare assertion. The evidence for what you believe should happen was something that you and your opponent agreed was not relevant to the US. When it was stated that a black market would be interrupted, it was countered that the black market would persist, and only the criminal would take advantage of it. it was also countered that your own source was int immediately intimating what you believed, certain firearms would NOT go up drastically in price.

"Thus, a gun ban would partially reduce the amount of guns, and thus partially reduce the amount of violent crime. Con is attempting to reject banning guns at all based on the logic that it does not stop all violent crime"

was misrepresented.

" Pro is advocating that we reduce the benefits of protection self and government for the hope that less impulse crimes occur; Crimes that he also admits can still occur with "Clubs and knives". The benefits of a gun ban simply don"t outweigh the con"s."

"I never argued that taking away a primary murder tool must mean that a murder won't take place. Which is embarrassing for it seems your prime reason for throwing away my argument. I clearly argued that it makes crime less successful."

"less successful" simply means some one possibly didn't die by a gun, in the scope you present. Of course, it also means a law abiding victim was most assuredly disarmed. Con routinely asks if that is worth it, and its a situation which I can readily empathize with.

" Those are where the majority of lives are. You throw this out in the beginning of your RFD, but these are still lives. You can't just disregard debater's arguments" --- this is going to sound again sound callous, but with regards to making a convincing argument, yes, I can. What this particular circumstance is highlighting is that the voter number you need must sample from a wide swathe of folks. I don't find how some one ices themselves to be important if no one else was put in harms way, con argued that understanding. I don't find 'accident' to be a compelling reason for anything aside from how to stop that specific accident. I am confident, however, there are other people that find those varieties of argument compelling for something deeper in scope.

Now, where we are at:

You have a process for an appeal.
You have my current "clarifying" info on hand.

I have nothing to ask of you, I am assuming your points on your topic were made in the debate.

Is there anything further we should discuss?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:24:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 3:40:39 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/28/2016 2:17:13 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/28/2016 2:14:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You are welcome to challenge the vote. Lord knows it isn't the first time it has happened, and will not be the last.

So you aren't willing to discuss your RFD?

Thus far your objections are as follows:

"you can't bubble wrap the world."

--Yet Con never brings this up. You are interjecting your own thoughts into the debate; exactly what you can't do while judging.

No, it was not brought up by con, it was addressed by con as baffling.

""Gun accidents are the worst kind of death". I am utterly baffled by this statement. How is a gun death any more senseless, and devoid of purpose than any other accidental death?".

Its an accidental death, the likes of which occur over broad sweeping disciplines, careers, and activities. Holding accident accountable as means for a ban comes off as farcical.

It is truism that it would save lives. If guns were banned these would disappear. 200 a day, thats a lot. 200 lives saved everyday doesn't seem silly

Remember: "If a gun ban helps save thousands of lives, the government has every right to save them; it is its duty to do so.". This means its the duty of the government to bubble wrap the world.

If cars were banned--the metaphor Con uses--all car accident deaths would end. That is truism. But cars have more utility than that, its uses outweigh its costs. What benefit do guns have that outweigh accidents. Are they necessary to society like cars? Do they serve a necessary purpose in life? No, hunting and target shooting and stuff. No necessary part of life, not anything productive. Thus the government should

Suicide is foisted into the the realm of the federal by means of a tool, and insist the participant use something inferior with the hopes that when the inferior tool doesn't work, they might change their mind. Con argued that choice is in their hands. Pro argues that option should be taken from them. Again: "But the government inherently has a duty to protect its citizens.". This is the same concept! You are still attempting to protect a person from themselves, this time through conscious action and not merely preventing an accident.

This is again your own rebuttal. And a straw man, you are misunderstanding the debate. I never argued that the person might change their mind to commit suicide because they have to use a less successful means of suicide. I argued that they are more likely to survive. Because they are less successful. The hospital assigns them to depression treatment which cures them of it 90% of the time.

"Because of my entire case. None of it relied on raw data from other countries..."... exactly. There was no model. It was akin to bare assertion. The evidence for what you believe should happen was something that you and your opponent agreed was not relevant to the US. When it was stated that a black market would be interrupted, it was countered that the black market would persist, and only the criminal would take advantage of it. it was also countered that your own source was int immediately intimating what you believed, certain firearms would NOT go up drastically in price.

"Thus, a gun ban would partially reduce the amount of guns, and thus partially reduce the amount of violent crime. Con is attempting to reject banning guns at all based on the logic that it does not stop all violent crime"

was misrepresented.

" Pro is advocating that we reduce the benefits of protection self and government for the hope that less impulse crimes occur; Crimes that he also admits can still occur with "Clubs and knives". The benefits of a gun ban simply don"t outweigh the con"s."

"I never argued that taking away a primary murder tool must mean that a murder won't take place. Which is embarrassing for it seems your prime reason for throwing away my argument. I clearly argued that it makes crime less successful."

"less successful" simply means some one possibly didn't die by a gun, in the scope you present. Of course, it also means a law abiding victim was most assuredly disarmed. Con routinely asks if that is worth it, and its a situation which I can readily empathize with.

" Those are where the majority of lives are. You throw this out in the beginning of your RFD, but these are still lives. You can't just disregard debater's arguments" --- this is going to sound again sound callous, but with regards to making a convincing argument, yes, I can. What this particular circumstance is highlighting is that the voter number you need must sample from a wide swathe of folks. I don't find how some one ices themselves to be important if no one else was put in harms way, con argued that understanding. I don't find 'accident' to be a compelling reason for anything aside from how to stop that specific accident. I am confident, however, there are other people that find those varieties of argument compelling for something deeper in scope.


Now, where we are at:

You have a process for an appeal.
You have my current "clarifying" info on hand.


I have nothing to ask of you, I am assuming your points on your topic were made in the debate.

They were

Is there anything further we should discuss?
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:05:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
While it obviously goes against my own interests to do this, I have to say that I agree with Hayd's and YYW's dispute with feustian's vote. I am generally not a fan of arguing with votes, as I am very appreciative that someone took the time out of their bust day to read something I put a lot of time and effort into. I am generally pretty objective about criticism, and can appreciate accurate observations for improvement. However I feel like many of the impacting decisions in this vote are indeed injected with personal bias, and if I do win this debate, I would rather it be centered around the ideals I poised rather than some offhand judgements off Pro's arguments that I didn't make.

I won't be reporting this vote, because it seemed that the debate was read or at the very minimum thoroughly skimmed, and there are aspects of the vote that meet fair voting standards, just stating my mild dis-agreement with the underlying reasons behind the decision.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 8:25:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:05:13 PM, TUF wrote:
While it obviously goes against my own interests to do this, I have to say that I agree with Hayd's and YYW's dispute with feustian's vote. I am generally not a fan of arguing with votes, as I am very appreciative that someone took the time out of their bust day to read something I put a lot of time and effort into. I am generally pretty objective about criticism, and can appreciate accurate observations for improvement. However I feel like many of the impacting decisions in this vote are indeed injected with personal bias, and if I do win this debate, I would rather it be centered around the ideals I poised rather than some offhand judgements off Pro's arguments that I didn't make.

I won't be reporting this vote, because it seemed that the debate was read or at the very minimum thoroughly skimmed, and there are aspects of the vote that meet fair voting standards, just stating my mild dis-agreement with the underlying reasons behind the decision.

I'm curious as to what you think (and the others) was injected that wasn't not mentioned or rebutted.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 9:25:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 8:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/28/2016 6:05:13 PM, TUF wrote:
While it obviously goes against my own interests to do this, I have to say that I agree with Hayd's and YYW's dispute with feustian's vote. I am generally not a fan of arguing with votes, as I am very appreciative that someone took the time out of their bust day to read something I put a lot of time and effort into. I am generally pretty objective about criticism, and can appreciate accurate observations for improvement. However I feel like many of the impacting decisions in this vote are indeed injected with personal bias, and if I do win this debate, I would rather it be centered around the ideals I poised rather than some offhand judgements off Pro's arguments that I didn't make.

I won't be reporting this vote, because it seemed that the debate was read or at the very minimum thoroughly skimmed, and there are aspects of the vote that meet fair voting standards, just stating my mild dis-agreement with the underlying reasons behind the decision.


I'm curious as to what you think (and the others) was injected that wasn't not mentioned or rebutted.

I don't mean to over-exagerate, there was a lot of your RFD that did cover things I actually said. There were just a few things that jumped out at me:

" Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world."

While I tend to agree with you here on this logic, I didn't really make this argument in the debate. I am not necessarily saying that it is a bad thing to have a formed opinion interject into an RFD, just that I can see where Hayd is coming from. In this argument the meat and potatoes of it was to undermine government interference with suicide (and you did accurately apply that part of my argument to your RFD).

" I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm."

This is the only other part that really jumped out to me, particularly because I didn't make this argument, is the very reason I might not win the debate. The personal safety argument and constitutional rights arguments were so lightly touched upon, (something that YYW and F-16 both mentioned, and is what is hurting me majorly in the voting period). And while I wish this wasn't the main thing holding me back from winning the debate, I can't really deny the voters that I failed to make this argument a priority.

Anyways, I think the bulk of your RFD is great and covers the arguments well. It's mostly these two points that I am saying I agree where I can see how it might seem to be some personal bias injection, but overall I think the vote meets voting standards, shows you've properly read the debate. And while your over arching analysis on why I won the debate holds, the two italicized portions above just make me question if you voted the way you did because of my arguments were superior, or because of your perceived weakness of Pro's arguments.

Thanks for voting, I really did appreciate the time spent into voting and definitely don't want to discourage you from voting, and I don't want to make this seem as if I am arguing your RFD. It could be very well that I am just mis-understanding something, which I admittedly am prone to do, and will admit to if found.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 9:49:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 9:25:01 PM, TUF wrote:
At 2/28/2016 8:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/28/2016 6:05:13 PM, TUF wrote:
While it obviously goes against my own interests to do this, I have to say that I agree with Hayd's and YYW's dispute with feustian's vote. I am generally not a fan of arguing with votes, as I am very appreciative that someone took the time out of their bust day to read something I put a lot of time and effort into. I am generally pretty objective about criticism, and can appreciate accurate observations for improvement. However I feel like many of the impacting decisions in this vote are indeed injected with personal bias, and if I do win this debate, I would rather it be centered around the ideals I poised rather than some offhand judgements off Pro's arguments that I didn't make.

I won't be reporting this vote, because it seemed that the debate was read or at the very minimum thoroughly skimmed, and there are aspects of the vote that meet fair voting standards, just stating my mild dis-agreement with the underlying reasons behind the decision.


I'm curious as to what you think (and the others) was injected that wasn't not mentioned or rebutted.

I don't mean to over-exagerate, there was a lot of your RFD that did cover things I actually said. There were just a few things that jumped out at me:

" Accidents happen with various forms of garden utensil and power tool, usually from some one behaving inappropriately or unsafe with it. To this end, "accident" fails as a reason for a ban: you can't bubble wrap the world."

While I tend to agree with you here on this logic, I didn't really make this argument in the debate.

Not word for word. You specifically said cars. In this convo, your opponent mentions utility as a means of exception, but that didn't happen in the debate. You ask how a gun death is any worse than any other accident. Now, the way I see it (and this might be what people are getting red flags from), is that question applies to damn near everything with regards to a ban (which is why I state as a reason its not convincing). If your opponent some how made mention of suicide and accident as by products from said, that would REAL tough to argue and incredibly convincing, but they are being used as a show piece, that if the government can do something, it should, and that extension (as you pointed out with a vehicle) when applied to other facets seems absurd. Sure, other people might be convinced by that. I am not one of them.
I am not necessarily saying that it is a bad thing to have a formed opinion interject into an RFD, just that I can see where Hayd is coming from. In this argument the meat and potatoes of it was to undermine government interference with suicide (and you did accurately apply that part of my argument to your RFD).

" I think the salient point as to what makes for inefficient murder tool out of bats and knives is the fact that the target might legally be armed with a firearm."


This is the only other part that really jumped out to me, particularly because I didn't make this argument, is the very reason I might not win the debate.

" Pro is advocating that we reduce the benefits of protection self and government for the hope that less impulse crimes occur; Crimes that he also admits can still occur with "Clubs and knives". The benefits of a gun ban simply don"t outweigh the con"s."

Pro sort of sets this up by showing the efficiency of a fire arm (as to why they are so regularly used), and couples it with the simple inadequacy of showing how a black market would cease to exist. The entire argument about a black market and law abiding citizen becomes one big cluster: a gun ban that only effects the law abiding. Gee. Great. Argue stiffer penalties. Argue increased police presence. When discussing a gun ban, I want to see policy, because 'assumed' results (especially when other countries are abandon as evidence) are assertion.
Based on what Pro has thus far put forward: "The benefits of a gun ban simply don't outweigh the cons".

The personal safety argument and constitutional rights arguments were so lightly touched upon, (something that YYW and F-16 both mentioned, and is what is hurting me majorly in the voting period). And while I wish this wasn't the main thing holding me back from winning the debate, I can't really deny the voters that I failed to make this argument a priority.

Which is why I am not standing on it as an RFD, even though its inherent to a definition of "The United States".


Anyways, I think the bulk of your RFD is great and covers the arguments well. It's mostly these two points that I am saying I agree where I can see how it might seem to be some personal bias injection, but overall I think the vote meets voting standards, shows you've properly read the debate. And while your over arching analysis on why I won the debate holds, the two italicized portions above just make me question if you voted the way you did because of my arguments were superior, or because of your perceived weakness of Pro's arguments.

Thanks for voting, I really did appreciate the time spent into voting and definitely don't want to discourage you from voting, and I don't want to make this seem as if I am arguing your RFD. It could be very well that I am just mis-understanding something, which I admittedly am prone to do, and will admit to if found.

Break a leg, bro.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:59:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:05:13 PM, TUF wrote:
While it obviously goes against my own interests to do this, I have to say that I agree with Hayd's and YYW's dispute with feustian's vote. I am generally not a fan of arguing with votes, as I am very appreciative that someone took the time out of their bust day to read something I put a lot of time and effort into. I am generally pretty objective about criticism, and can appreciate accurate observations for improvement. However I feel like many of the impacting decisions in this vote are indeed injected with personal bias, and if I do win this debate, I would rather it be centered around the ideals I poised rather than some offhand judgements off Pro's arguments that I didn't make.

I won't be reporting this vote, because it seemed that the debate was read or at the very minimum thoroughly skimmed, and there are aspects of the vote that meet fair voting standards, just stating my mild dis-agreement with the underlying reasons behind the decision.

I appreciate this, and my respect for you grows. I agree that we should appreciate the votes, and I do appreciate Faustian voting on it. Thats why I am (trying) to respectfully discuss it, sometimes something slips, and I apologize for that. But I appreciate faustian's vote. Voting standards only apply to votes that aren't explained, but the explanation can still be 4/5 bullsh!t. It just can't blatantly lie about obvious facts, so voting standards obviously do not apply to Faustian's vote.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 12:35:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:59:00 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/28/2016 6:05:13 PM, TUF wrote:
While it obviously goes against my own interests to do this, I have to say that I agree with Hayd's and YYW's dispute with feustian's vote. I am generally not a fan of arguing with votes, as I am very appreciative that someone took the time out of their bust day to read something I put a lot of time and effort into. I am generally pretty objective about criticism, and can appreciate accurate observations for improvement. However I feel like many of the impacting decisions in this vote are indeed injected with personal bias, and if I do win this debate, I would rather it be centered around the ideals I poised rather than some offhand judgements off Pro's arguments that I didn't make.

I won't be reporting this vote, because it seemed that the debate was read or at the very minimum thoroughly skimmed, and there are aspects of the vote that meet fair voting standards, just stating my mild dis-agreement with the underlying reasons behind the decision.

I appreciate this, and my respect for you grows. I agree that we should appreciate the votes, and I do appreciate Faustian voting on it. Thats why I am (trying) to respectfully discuss it, sometimes something slips, and I apologize for that. But I appreciate faustian's vote. Voting standards only apply to votes that aren't explained, but the explanation can still be 4/5 bullsh!t. It just can't blatantly lie about obvious facts, so voting standards obviously do not apply to Faustian's vote.

You know some one whom voted for you whole cloth invented a defense from an argument that was read in the comments, and said decision is prefaced with "I just need this debate for voting privileges", right? Tell me more about your impression of standards.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...