Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

RFD: Hayd v. Taj (Guns)

YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 5:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I. Topic

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

The United States Ought to Ban Firearms

The resolution is about whether the United States ought to ban fire arms. The resolution is not specific to any level of government and therefore refers to the United States generally, and, by implication, all levels of government with such capacity to ban firearms.

PRO must argue that the US ought to ban firearms, whereas CON must argue that the US ought NOT ban firearms. The resolution is normative and therefore the burdens of persuasion are equal, meaning that neither PRO nor CON has a greater or lesser burden than one another.

Competent judges must avoid any and all bias to the extent possible for the purpose of producing the most fair RFD possible to the debaters. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I think it is reasonable that the debaters know precisely where I stand on the issue. I obviously do not think that the United States should ban firearms. My views on the issue, at the same time, are irrelevant for the purpose of this exercise, nor will they in any way impact how I evaluate this debate. The reason my views on the topic will have no impact on how I evaluate the debate is because to allow my views on the topic to influence how I judge this round would be manifestly unfair to both debaters.

II. Arguments

PRO argued that banning firearms will save thousands of lives, and proposes that the US ban the sale, transport, use and possession of firearms by private citizens who would be forced under the threat of criminal penalty to surrender their guns within a given time period. PRO contended in particular that banning guns in totality would reduce suicide, gun accidents, and crime.

CON argued that Americans use guns for self defense, that gun bans correlate with increased crime, and that banning guns would hurt the economy while creating a black market for guns. CON added that banning guns is "simply undemocratic" and "leads to a police state" but these were little more than conclusory assertions which failed in their own rite. Hyperbole doth not arguments make.

III. Rebuttals

First, PRO countered by positing that "Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence." This directly undermined PRO's contention regarding the same. Second, PRO countered by correctly indicating the difference between correlation and causation, and thereby mitigated the impact of CON's point regarding crime increases. Third, PRO countered by acknowledging some marginal economic harm in his world, but by furnishing evidence that the economic harms in the CON world vastly exceed those in the PRO world. Fourth, PRO countered CON's very weak black market argument by contending that banning firearms would reduce the supply of black market weapons, thereby minimizing the impact of a harm that exists in both worlds. PRO entirely countered the police state/democracy argument, but there was no point because that argument was frivolous insofar as it was entirely lacking in evidentiary support.

CON argued in rebuttal that there is insufficient data to ascertain the amount of lives saved, incorrectly described PRO's use of certain statistics with respect to gun accidents/deaths, and simply restated the amount of guns in circulation in the US as a measure of countering reduced supply. These uniformly failed, and he dropped his own point about totalitarian police states and undemocratic outcomes. CON also introduced the new point about 3d printing, but this was not a new argument, only a rebuttal, even if a weak one.

IV. Outcome

No debater may win whose arguments do not have sufficient evidentiary support. Evidentiary support are reasons to believe the claims you're making. The claims you're making as a debater must directly advance the BOP. Claims which directly advance the BOP provide reasons in support of the proposition debated if on PRO, or in opposition to the proposition debated on CON. Here, PRO carried every argument he made and most of the rebuttal points (except those which were dropped, but which in the end did not matter because they were weak). Note: hyperbolic arguments (e.g. "totalitarianism is the result if we affirm") are almost always weak, because it is impossible to find sufficient support for them.

PRO wins and CON loses. PRO wins because he directly affirmed the resolution would reduce suicide, accidents and crime, and countered every single argument CON raised with sufficient force whether or not CON dropped his own hyperbolic point regarding police states and undemocratic outcomes. PRO supported each of these three claims with sufficient evidence. CON loses because his arguments were, in relation to PRO's, not as relatively strong. This was because of PRO's rebuttals regarding (1) self defense, (2) crime increases, (3) relative economic harms in pro and con worlds, (4) supply of guns in the black market. The force of CON's impacts were entirely undermined. CON's rebuttals could not save his victory, and were lacking in sufficient strength to undermine PRO's points because they rarely if ever directly undermined the claim PRO made in relation to CON's own case.

V. Comments

If you guys were college kids who I was grading, I'd give PRO a B and CON a B-. This was not a bad debate, though CON should focus on grounding his claims with sufficient evidence.

PRO should avoid exposing himself to undue risk, for example, by not talking about "plans of implementation" which are tangential to the resolution.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 6:20:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 5:26:18 PM, YYW wrote:
First, PRO countered by positing that "Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence." This directly undermined PRO's contention regarding the same.

What does this mean?

PRO should avoid exposing himself to undue risk, for example, by not talking about "plans of implementation" which are tangential to the resolution.

Without establishing how I will affirm the resolution (in how I will implement the gun ban), I don't think I fulfill the BoP. Regardless, its perfectly reasonable to debate the actual implementation of gun ban, as that is very important to whether US actually ought to implement it. Not providing a plan does not let Con discuss that, which is unfair and ignores an important part of the discussion.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 6:53:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 6:20:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:26:18 PM, YYW wrote:
First, PRO countered by positing that "Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence." This directly undermined PRO's contention regarding the same.

What does this mean?

Same contention. Self defense.

PRO should avoid exposing himself to undue risk, for example, by not talking about "plans of implementation" which are tangential to the resolution.

Without establishing how I will affirm the resolution (in how I will implement the gun ban), I don't think I fulfill the BoP. Regardless, its perfectly reasonable to debate the actual implementation of gun ban, as that is very important to whether US actually ought to implement it.

Whether something should be done is different from debating how to do it. You can make the plan an issue, but it's not advisable on your side of this argument.

Not providing a plan does not let Con discuss that, which is unfair and ignores an important part of the discussion.

That is wrong. CON can make impossibility or impracticality an issue by arguing that it can't be done whether or not you outline a plan.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:13:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 6:53:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:20:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:26:18 PM, YYW wrote:
First, PRO countered by positing that "Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence." This directly undermined PRO's contention regarding the same.

What does this mean?

Same contention. Self defense.

That doesn't make sense. You said that my rebuttal undermined one of my arguments, I never made an argument regarding self defense.

PRO should avoid exposing himself to undue risk, for example, by not talking about "plans of implementation" which are tangential to the resolution.

Without establishing how I will affirm the resolution (in how I will implement the gun ban), I don't think I fulfill the BoP. Regardless, its perfectly reasonable to debate the actual implementation of gun ban, as that is very important to whether US actually ought to implement it.

Whether something should be done is different from debating how to do it. You can make the plan an issue, but it's not advisable on your side of this argument.

If the *should* is implementing policy, the policy that we are implementing (the ban of manufacturing, sell, use, possession, etc. within a year to collection centers) is important.

Not providing a plan does not let Con discuss that, which is unfair and ignores an important part of the discussion.

That is wrong. CON can make impossibility or impracticality an issue by arguing that it can't be done whether or not you outline a plan.

Not really, because Con doesn't know how the ban is implemented he can't argue whether the implementation is impractical. Any argument on the impractability of implementation would be *assuming* something, which isn't founded, because only Pro can establish the plan
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:13:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:53:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:20:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:26:18 PM, YYW wrote:
First, PRO countered by positing that "Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence." This directly undermined PRO's contention regarding the same.

What does this mean?

Same contention. Self defense.

That doesn't make sense. You said that my rebuttal undermined one of my arguments, I never made an argument regarding self defense.

Sorry.... his contention.

PRO should avoid exposing himself to undue risk, for example, by not talking about "plans of implementation" which are tangential to the resolution.

Without establishing how I will affirm the resolution (in how I will implement the gun ban), I don't think I fulfill the BoP. Regardless, its perfectly reasonable to debate the actual implementation of gun ban, as that is very important to whether US actually ought to implement it.

Whether something should be done is different from debating how to do it. You can make the plan an issue, but it's not advisable on your side of this argument.

If the *should* is implementing policy, the policy that we are implementing (the ban of manufacturing, sell, use, possession, etc. within a year to collection centers) is important.

It is important, sure... but not necessary to discuss for the purpose of debating the resolution.

Not providing a plan does not let Con discuss that, which is unfair and ignores an important part of the discussion.

That is wrong. CON can make impossibility or impracticality an issue by arguing that it can't be done whether or not you outline a plan.

Not really, because Con doesn't know how the ban is implemented he can't argue whether the implementation is impractical.

This is also wrong. He can argue that ******any****** plan would be impossible, impractical, etc., and that is fair game whether you bring up a plan for implementation or not.

Any argument on the impractability of implementation would be *assuming* something, which isn't founded, because only Pro can establish the plan

Wrong, for the reason I said above.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 8:18:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:29:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:13:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:53:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:20:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:26:18 PM, YYW wrote:
First, PRO countered by positing that "Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence." This directly undermined PRO's contention regarding the same.

What does this mean?

Same contention. Self defense.

That doesn't make sense. You said that my rebuttal undermined one of my arguments, I never made an argument regarding self defense.

Sorry.... his contention.

Ah, sweet.

PRO should avoid exposing himself to undue risk, for example, by not talking about "plans of implementation" which are tangential to the resolution.

Without establishing how I will affirm the resolution (in how I will implement the gun ban), I don't think I fulfill the BoP. Regardless, its perfectly reasonable to debate the actual implementation of gun ban, as that is very important to whether US actually ought to implement it.

Whether something should be done is different from debating how to do it. You can make the plan an issue, but it's not advisable on your side of this argument.

If the *should* is implementing policy, the policy that we are implementing (the ban of manufacturing, sell, use, possession, etc. within a year to collection centers) is important.

It is important, sure... but not necessary to discuss for the purpose of debating the resolution.

Not providing a plan does not let Con discuss that, which is unfair and ignores an important part of the discussion.

That is wrong. CON can make impossibility or impracticality an issue by arguing that it can't be done whether or not you outline a plan.

Not really, because Con doesn't know how the ban is implemented he can't argue whether the implementation is impractical.

This is also wrong. He can argue that ******any****** plan would be impossible, impractical, etc., and that is fair game whether you bring up a plan for implementation or not.

Any argument on the impractability of implementation would be *assuming* something, which isn't founded, because only Pro can establish the plan

Wrong, for the reason I said above.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:53:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I hope this will be interesting.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Tsar of DDO
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:05:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM, YYW wrote:
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

That was me. I got ticked off when you said " Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.". Although I read the vote, it does seem like your vote was fair.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:09:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM, YYW wrote:
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Don't take it personally. Normally when people leave comments like that, I'm usually under the impression that the vote is incredibly biased, which is why I reported it without actually reading it.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:28:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 4:05:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM, YYW wrote:
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

That was me. I got ticked off when you said " Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.". Although I read the vote, it does seem like your vote was fair.

You should actually read votes before you report them. I am, bar none, the best voter on this site. The idea that any ballot I would cast is insufficient is outright absurdity, and the fact that you reported it without even reading what I wrote is a very poor reflection in you as a debater.
Tsar of DDO
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:44:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:28:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:05:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM, YYW wrote:
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

That was me. I got ticked off when you said " Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.". Although I read the vote, it does seem like your vote was fair.

You should actually read votes before you report them. I am, bar none, the best voter on this site. The idea that any ballot I would cast is insufficient is outright absurdity, and the fact that you reported it without even reading what I wrote is a very poor reflection in you as a debater.

I agree. I'll take responsibility for it.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:28:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:05:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM, YYW wrote:
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

That was me. I got ticked off when you said " Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.". Although I read the vote, it does seem like your vote was fair.

You should actually read votes before you report them. I am, bar none, the best voter on this site. The idea that any ballot I would cast is insufficient is outright absurdity, and the fact that you reported it without even reading what I wrote is a very poor reflection in you as a debater.

I agree. I'll take responsibility for it.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:49:30 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:28:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:05:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 10:50:49 PM, YYW wrote:
I still cannot believe someone had the gaul to report my ballot. Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

That was me. I got ticked off when you said " Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.". Although I read the vote, it does seem like your vote was fair.

You should actually read votes before you report them. I am, bar none, the best voter on this site. The idea that any ballot I would cast is insufficient is outright absurdity, and the fact that you reported it without even reading what I wrote is a very poor reflection in you as a debater.

I agree. I'll take responsibility for it.

Alright, well... no harm no foul then.
Tsar of DDO