Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

RFD on Firearms Debate

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 5:54:09 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
This is an RFD for Hayd and Taj's debate on firearm ownership in this US [http://www.debate.org...]. I wasn't asked to vote, but this is a topic I've debated several times, and was interested in seeing how it was handled by other debaters.

Part 1 - Hayd's Case

The case's introduction was overly long, and took away character space that could've been used for argumentation. I am also baffled by Hayd's choice to offer a plan; the plan text doesn't do anything to make an argument for what the government ought to be doing (so, in that sense, it doesn't do anything to help Pro fulfill his BOP) and when the resolution is asking an "ought" question, I don't think Pro needs to defend any specific policy. I would've liked headings to more clearly separate arguments as well.

Framework

Hayd's framework lacked any kind of justification whatsoever. Just saying that "governments ought to operate upon utilitarian means" is not an argument, and it doesn't give any foundation for why governments ought to operate in this fashion.

Taj's refutation of Hayd's framework is more substantive than Hayd's own explanation of his framework, namely because there was no stated reason in Hayd's case as to why I should use utilitarianism to assess the round. Taj's arguments themselves weren't persuasively articulated (IMO), but at the very least I am getting some form of analysis; for instance, I should prefer a rights-based paradigm over a utilitarian one in order to prevent government tyranny committed in the name of the greater good.

By R4, I finally get reasons to buy Hayd's framework. Grounding utilitarianism in a fundamental right to life was an argument that should have been given in Hayd's case, to provide some kind of initial justification. Hayd's arguments here are compelling--life is a prerequisite to experiencing other rights, and is a right unto itself, and so it should be prioritized/maximized. As a result, I am going to be looking to utility to weigh the round.

I would've liked for Taj to have offered his own framework in his case, but alas, he did not.

Suicide and Accidents

Taj's argument that suicidal people will find other ways to take there own lives simply doesn't rebut Hayd's evidence that "States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide." This data strongly indicates that the lack of guns does not result in substitution. Hayd also points out that guns are more lethal than other possible means of suicide, indicating that the absence of guns would reduce the mortality rates of suicide attempts, and suicide rates overall, since suicide tends to be impulsive and is unlikely to be attempted twice. Given this, I am just not seeing how Taj's arguments stack up here.

As for the mental health issue, I dislike that Hayd just dismisses it wholesale. I have to believe that a better mental health system could save some lives, even if there were no gun ban. That is going to mitigate Hayd's impacts. However, I am not going to buy that it saves every life; a gun ban would clearly help save lives. Moreover, I get absolutely no data from Taj about how many lives a better mental health system could save, whereas I am getting more concrete numbers about how many firearm suicides there are (and the lethality of guns in those cases) and so I have at least some idea about what kind of impact a ban could have. In the end, the suicide argument mostly flows Hayd's way. He's getting some clear offense here.

As for accidental deaths, Taj just goes for mitigation there, and gets it to an extent. there are 505 accidental gun deaths per year, and thousands more injuries. A government would still, under a utilitarian framework, want to minimize those deaths and injuries, however, so this is still positive offense for Hayd.

Gun Production

Hayd's arguments here are also solid. I am buying that there is a high threshold to making guns at home that that criminal will be hard-pressed to afford guns after a ban. More evidence regarding these points, however, would've been appreciated. that being said, Hayd clearly cannot prevent all criminals or maniacs from getting guns, but Taj gives me no concrete idea about how many of those wrongdoers would actually get ahold of a firearm. This is a pervasive issue in this debate: I get a lot of big claims, with little evidence supporting them and/or no quantification of the harms.

Part 2 - Taj's Case

Self-Defense

I would've liked Taj to have stated how many of those defensive gun uses were effective, and not just how many occurred. Con's source says: "In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender." I would like to know how many of those times the gun worked.

Hayd doesn't quite make that argument, but the argument he does make here is compelling: if guns do not, on balance, increase an owner's safety, it is not utilitarian to allow their possession, even if they are good self-defense tools.

Examples

While I credit Hayd that Taj's arguments do entail the correlation-causation problem, I would've liked Hayd to be more specific about what alternative causes for the rise in crime their might have been. For example, I would've liked Hayd to suggest an alternative explanation for the spike in crime in the UK. That being said, Taj's response to Hayd's argument was absolutely vacuous; that DC and the UK are different is not proof that there were not confounding variables in either or both cases. Even so, I am more inclined to treat Hayd's arguments as mitigation, since it is possible (and certainly not implausible) that the connection Taj draws exists.

Economics

Hayd is correct that lives are going to matter more in this equation, but there is some question as to whether or not economics has an impact on safety. I buy that guns entail a high social cost, but how does that translate to jobs, for example? What if all the people who produce or sell guns legally were suddenly out of a job and were no longer reinvesting their money into the economy (both through taxes and through other purchases)? I do not believe that job loss won't have some effect on our economy or our society. Even if the social costs of guns outweigh the raw tax revenue ($6 billion) and the total economic impact of $19.5 billion, I am not sure whether the sudden job loss (and resulting spike in crime rates) would not cause a spike in homicide rates. So, the impacts coming off this contention are a bit muddled. Nothing is really clarified for me.

Black Market and Police State

From earlier, I am buying that there is a high threshold for manufacturing guns, that few people could acquire the tools, skills, knowledge, materials, and time to produce them, esp. when the government would be searching for these illegal producers. I think Taj would have benefitted from arguing that guns could be smuggled in from abroad, but I didn't see that argument. So, while I agree that some guns are going to be produced in the US after a ban, I agree with Hayd that prices are likely to rise and that fresh production is going to be limited.

Hayd's plan states: "the law enforcement would get a warrant from a court if they have adequate reason to believe that the household contains firearms, and then they can search the premises." I see no violations of people's due process or privacy rights that would be unique to Hayd's world. I am not really getting how Hayd would create a police state...I also don't see opinion polling weighing under a utility framework, except that some might violently resist, but this possibility is never really quantified by Taj, so it's hard to weigh.

(continued below)
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 6:07:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
(continued from above)

Part 3 - Conclusion

So, this debate really comes down to math. I grant that Hayd is saving lives by reducing suicides, by reducing gun accidents, and by reducing gun-related criminal activity. Taj presents some numbers in his final round, but they neglect to assess the potential gains Hayd is getting from reducing that violent criminal threat. From Taj, I am buying that there may be some (likely small) resistance to government attempts to confiscate guns and that probably many thousands used guns to successfully defend themselves.

In the end, I think the long-term drop in violent crime is likely to outweigh Taj's impacts. I think Hayd should've expanded on this point, but given that I think that violent resistance to government is apt to be miniscule (most would not resist, as Hayd said), it is hard not to believe that the suicide- and accident-preventing benefits would not more than eclipse that number. And, even if each one of those self-defense cases was successful (this is not clear, though), I am inclined to believe that cutting down on violent crime, which both debaters agreed was important, would not eclipse the benefits of self-defense. The Philadelphia study indicates to me that the violence guns create does indeed outweigh the benefits of gun ownership Taj outlines. Vote goes for Hayd. Good, close debate.

So little in this debate was quantified, and that made a lot of the impacts really, really vague. Y'all need to work on that, btw...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 3:00:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
How do you weigh a non-quantified, unclear, unsourced impact against a quantified one?

Idk... I just default to the one with numbers.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:56:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 3:00:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
How do you weigh a non-quantified, unclear, unsourced impact against a quantified one?

Just because there are no numbers does not mean that the impacts don't exist. They need to be considered. Crime is clearly a grave risk to life and safety, and both debaters seem to agree that crime is problematic. If Hayd can make crime less lethal, I think that deserves some consideration in the weighing. Moreover, I think that Hayd's Philadelphia study indicates that the risk of increased violence does probably outweigh the benefits of gun ownership.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:09:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 7:56:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:00:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
How do you weigh a non-quantified, unclear, unsourced impact against a quantified one?

Just because there are no numbers does not mean that the impacts don't exist. They need to be considered. Crime is clearly a grave risk to life and safety, and both debaters seem to agree that crime is problematic. If Hayd can make crime less lethal, I think that deserves some consideration in the weighing. Moreover, I think that Hayd's Philadelphia study indicates that the risk of increased violence does probably outweigh the benefits of gun ownership.

I do think you misinterpreted my question, in that I wasn't attacking "you" -- the "you" referred to "one" in general. How does one weigh an unquantified impact against a quantified one?

Increased crime is an important impact... but how does it compare to self-defense?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:09:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 7:56:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:00:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
How do you weigh a non-quantified, unclear, unsourced impact against a quantified one?

Just because there are no numbers does not mean that the impacts don't exist. They need to be considered. Crime is clearly a grave risk to life and safety, and both debaters seem to agree that crime is problematic. If Hayd can make crime less lethal, I think that deserves some consideration in the weighing. Moreover, I think that Hayd's Philadelphia study indicates that the risk of increased violence does probably outweigh the benefits of gun ownership.

You say that my arguments have a correlation causation problem with my self-defense studies, but how do you justify Hayd's Philadelphia study when the same logic could apply?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 5:54:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This is an RFD for Hayd and Taj's debate on firearm ownership in this US [http://www.debate.org...]. I wasn't asked to vote, but this is a topic I've debated several times, and was interested in seeing how it was handled by other debaters.

Part 1 - Hayd's Case

The case's introduction was overly long, and took away character space that could've been used for argumentation. I am also baffled by Hayd's choice to offer a plan; the plan text doesn't do anything to make an argument for what the government ought to be doing (so, in that sense, it doesn't do anything to help Pro fulfill his BOP) and when the resolution is asking an "ought" question, I don't think Pro needs to defend any specific policy. I would've liked headings to more clearly separate arguments as well.

Framework

Hayd's framework lacked any kind of justification whatsoever. Just saying that "governments ought to operate upon utilitarian means" is not an argument, and it doesn't give any foundation for why governments ought to operate in this fashion.

Taj's refutation of Hayd's framework is more substantive than Hayd's own explanation of his framework, namely because there was no stated reason in Hayd's case as to why I should use utilitarianism to assess the round. Taj's arguments themselves weren't persuasively articulated (IMO), but at the very least I am getting some form of analysis; for instance, I should prefer a rights-based paradigm over a utilitarian one in order to prevent government tyranny committed in the name of the greater good.

By R4, I finally get reasons to buy Hayd's framework. Grounding utilitarianism in a fundamental right to life was an argument that should have been given in Hayd's case, to provide some kind of initial justification. Hayd's arguments here are compelling--life is a prerequisite to experiencing other rights, and is a right unto itself, and so it should be prioritized/maximized. As a result, I am going to be looking to utility to weigh the round.

I would've liked for Taj to have offered his own framework in his case, but alas, he did not.

Suicide and Accidents

Taj's argument that suicidal people will find other ways to take there own lives simply doesn't rebut Hayd's evidence that "States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide." This data strongly indicates that the lack of guns does not result in substitution. Hayd also points out that guns are more lethal than other possible means of suicide, indicating that the absence of guns would reduce the mortality rates of suicide attempts, and suicide rates overall, since suicide tends to be impulsive and is unlikely to be attempted twice. Given this, I am just not seeing how Taj's arguments stack up here.

As for the mental health issue, I dislike that Hayd just dismisses it wholesale. I have to believe that a better mental health system could save some lives, even if there were no gun ban. That is going to mitigate Hayd's impacts. However, I am not going to buy that it saves every life; a gun ban would clearly help save lives. Moreover, I get absolutely no data from Taj about how many lives a better mental health system could save, whereas I am getting more concrete numbers about how many firearm suicides there are (and the lethality of guns in those cases) and so I have at least some idea about what kind of impact a ban could have. In the end, the suicide argument mostly flows Hayd's way. He's getting some clear offense here.

As for accidental deaths, Taj just goes for mitigation there, and gets it to an extent. there are 505 accidental gun deaths per year, and thousands more injuries. A government would still, under a utilitarian framework, want to minimize those deaths and injuries, however, so this is still positive offense for Hayd.

Gun Production

Hayd's arguments here are also solid. I am buying that there is a high threshold to making guns at home that that criminal will be hard-pressed to afford guns after a ban. More evidence regarding these points, however, would've been appreciated. that being said, Hayd clearly cannot prevent all criminals or maniacs from getting guns, but Taj gives me no concrete idea about how many of those wrongdoers would actually get ahold of a firearm. This is a pervasive issue in this debate: I get a lot of big claims, with little evidence supporting them and/or no quantification of the harms.


I talked about improvised firearms, and how easily they can be created. I even cited an incident where a criminal used an improvised firearm.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 4:09:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 7:56:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just because there are no numbers does not mean that the impacts don't exist. They need to be considered. Crime is clearly a grave risk to life and safety, and both debaters seem to agree that crime is problematic. If Hayd can make crime less lethal, I think that deserves some consideration in the weighing. Moreover, I think that Hayd's Philadelphia study indicates that the risk of increased violence does probably outweigh the benefits of gun ownership.

You say that my arguments have a correlation causation problem with my self-defense studies, but how do you justify Hayd's Philadelphia study when the same logic could apply?

You didn't make that argument against Hayd, though you had an opportunity to do so in the debate. I am not going to manufacture arguments on your behalf that you did not make yourself.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:23:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
bump because Bronto is being a f*cking idiot.

What?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:34:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 4:12:25 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 5:54:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Hayd's arguments here are also solid. I am buying that there is a high threshold to making guns at home that that criminal will be hard-pressed to afford guns after a ban. More evidence regarding these points, however, would've been appreciated. that being said, Hayd clearly cannot prevent all criminals or maniacs from getting guns, but Taj gives me no concrete idea about how many of those wrongdoers would actually get ahold of a firearm. This is a pervasive issue in this debate: I get a lot of big claims, with little evidence supporting them and/or no quantification of the harms.


I talked about improvised firearms, and how easily they can be created. I even cited an incident where a criminal used an improvised firearm.

I am just going to quote Hayd: "Homemade firearms take *extreme* skill and time to gather all of the resources needed and have special tools to craft the barrel, and special tools to have the bullet fit perfectly in the barrel. All of this requires factories, making homemade firearms will result in those firearms being of very low quality and thus not dangerous. Even if an effective firearm is able to be manufactured privately it will take incredibly long amounts of time, cost to gather the resources, and skill to craft it. The creator thus has to charge a high price of it which would deter criminals from purchasing it, and this would be rare, thus still significantly decreasing the new income of firearms in the market thus raising prices of firearms and deterring criminals from getting them."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:46:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:32:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:09:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 7:56:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just because there are no numbers does not mean that the impacts don't exist. They need to be considered. Crime is clearly a grave risk to life and safety, and both debaters seem to agree that crime is problematic. If Hayd can make crime less lethal, I think that deserves some consideration in the weighing. Moreover, I think that Hayd's Philadelphia study indicates that the risk of increased violence does probably outweigh the benefits of gun ownership.

You say that my arguments have a correlation causation problem with my self-defense studies, but how do you justify Hayd's Philadelphia study when the same logic could apply?

You didn't make that argument against Hayd, though you had an opportunity to do so in the debate. I am not going to manufacture arguments on your behalf that you did not make yourself.

It was the last round, since Hayd was only attacking my rebuttals, I thought it would only be fair for me to do the same. He brought up the study in his last round.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default. Con is to demonstrate that pro has not successfully affirmed the resolution and he needn't affirm the negative claim. Con's round three rebuttals should have been stated in round two. Con's positive arguments in round two were entirely superfluous. It also appears that those arguments were essentially ignored thereafter by both contenders, excepting those cases in which Con repurposed those contentions as direct refutations to pro's claims.

2. Con's round three rebuttals successfully address pro's three contentions (although they could have been countered pretty easily). Pro's response in round four consists almost entirely of speculation and generalities that have absolutely no evidentiary weight. Con's rebuttals stand.

3. Con's round four calculation of utility addressed the heart of the entire debate (as pro had framed it) -- if pro contends that more lives are saved than lost by abolishing firearms, that arithmetic should have initially appeared in his round one argument, not con's round four, where pro is not able to bring con's methods and tabulation into dispute.

4. Pro essentially concedes the 'gun accidents' contention ... or at least allows con to defang his point without much protest.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:51:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:34:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:12:25 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/15/2016 5:54:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Hayd's arguments here are also solid. I am buying that there is a high threshold to making guns at home that that criminal will be hard-pressed to afford guns after a ban. More evidence regarding these points, however, would've been appreciated. that being said, Hayd clearly cannot prevent all criminals or maniacs from getting guns, but Taj gives me no concrete idea about how many of those wrongdoers would actually get ahold of a firearm. This is a pervasive issue in this debate: I get a lot of big claims, with little evidence supporting them and/or no quantification of the harms.


I talked about improvised firearms, and how easily they can be created. I even cited an incident where a criminal used an improvised firearm.

I am just going to quote Hayd: "Homemade firearms take *extreme* skill and time to gather all of the resources needed and have special tools to craft the barrel, and special tools to have the bullet fit perfectly in the barrel. All of this requires factories, making homemade firearms will result in those firearms being of very low quality and thus not dangerous. Even if an effective firearm is able to be manufactured privately it will take incredibly long amounts of time, cost to gather the resources, and skill to craft it. The creator thus has to charge a high price of it which would deter criminals from purchasing it, and this would be rare, thus still significantly decreasing the new income of firearms in the market thus raising prices of firearms and deterring criminals from getting them."

So? Why should that hold any weight if no sources were provided to prove that?? Hayd gave no sources to prove that, yet you choose to use that as weight in your RFD.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:55:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default.

I categorically reject that notion...in debates which ask an "ought" question, the default should be a shared BOP.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.

You're entitled to your views and to the disagreements you have with my RFD. Regardless, I don't agree, and reached a different decision. You should cast your own vote with your own reasons and analysis.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:46:14 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:32:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:09:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
You say that my arguments have a correlation causation problem with my self-defense studies, but how do you justify Hayd's Philadelphia study when the same logic could apply?

You didn't make that argument against Hayd, though you had an opportunity to do so in the debate. I am not going to manufacture arguments on your behalf that you did not make yourself.

It was the last round, since Hayd was only attacking my rebuttals, I thought it would only be fair for me to do the same. He brought up the study in his last round.

He brought up Philly in R3, if I am not mistaken. You did have a chance to respond in your R4, therefore. You did not use that opportunity to make the argument you made here.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:51:06 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
So? Why should that hold any weight if no sources were provided to prove that?? Hayd gave no sources to prove that, yet you choose to use that as weight in your RFD.

Hayd used logic and analysis to make his point. Why is a source necessary when logic suffices? Clearly, if people don't have the tools to do it (and let's face it, few people have access to 3D printers) there is a high barrier to access.

More to the point, I never discounted your argument. I merely pointed out that Hayd's argument mitigated it.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:02:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:55:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default.

I categorically reject that notion...in debates which ask an "ought" question, the default should be a shared BOP.

Why?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:03:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:02:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:55:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default.

I categorically reject that notion...in debates which ask an "ought" question, the default should be a shared BOP.

Why?

See the discussion I had with Danielle here: http://www.debate.org...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:14:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:01:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:51:06 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
So? Why should that hold any weight if no sources were provided to prove that?? Hayd gave no sources to prove that, yet you choose to use that as weight in your RFD.

Hayd used logic and analysis to make his point. Why is a source necessary when logic suffices? Clearly, if people don't have the tools to do it (and let's face it, few people have access to 3D printers) there is a high barrier to access.

More to the point, I never discounted your argument. I merely pointed out that Hayd's argument mitigated it.

Saying something like "homemade firearms are not dangerous" is not logic. You need to prove it is actually is not dangerous. Only that last point about supply and demand can be considered to be logical. He has just made a bunch of assumptions.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:19:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:14:16 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:01:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:51:06 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
So? Why should that hold any weight if no sources were provided to prove that?? Hayd gave no sources to prove that, yet you choose to use that as weight in your RFD.

Hayd used logic and analysis to make his point. Why is a source necessary when logic suffices? Clearly, if people don't have the tools to do it (and let's face it, few people have access to 3D printers) there is a high barrier to access.

More to the point, I never discounted your argument. I merely pointed out that Hayd's argument mitigated it.

Saying something like "homemade firearms are not dangerous" is not logic.

Pointing out that homemade firearms are likely less precisely crafted and maybe less well-engineered, and are thus less dangerous, is logic. Obviously, I disagree with Hayd's idea that they are not dangerous at all, but they are probably less dangerous, and I can grant him that. This is, again, where his mitigation came in, as I said.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:28:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

That is wrong.

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated.

That is wrong.

He retains the full burden by default.

That is manifestly wrong.

Con is to demonstrate that pro has not successfully affirmed the resolution and he needn't affirm the negative claim. Con's round three rebuttals should have been stated in round two. Con's positive arguments in round two were entirely superfluous. It also appears that those arguments were essentially ignored thereafter by both contenders, excepting those cases in which Con repurposed those contentions as direct refutations to pro's claims.

2. Con's round three rebuttals successfully address pro's three contentions (although they could have been countered pretty easily). Pro's response in round four consists almost entirely of speculation and generalities that have absolutely no evidentiary weight. Con's rebuttals stand.

3. Con's round four calculation of utility addressed the heart of the entire debate (as pro had framed it) -- if pro contends that more lives are saved than lost by abolishing firearms, that arithmetic should have initially appeared in his round one argument, not con's round four, where pro is not able to bring con's methods and tabulation into dispute.

4. Pro essentially concedes the 'gun accidents' contention ... or at least allows con to defang his point without much protest.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.

I thought about writing out why this was wrong, but I don't even care. Bsh1's RFD was not 100% right, but it was more right than it was wrong and 00ike's comment is patently misguided.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:28:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:02:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:55:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default.

I categorically reject that notion...in debates which ask an "ought" question, the default should be a shared BOP.

Why?

Because he is correct.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:25:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:28:30 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

That is wrong.

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated.

That is wrong.

He retains the full burden by default.

That is manifestly wrong.

Con is to demonstrate that pro has not successfully affirmed the resolution and he needn't affirm the negative claim. Con's round three rebuttals should have been stated in round two. Con's positive arguments in round two were entirely superfluous. It also appears that those arguments were essentially ignored thereafter by both contenders, excepting those cases in which Con repurposed those contentions as direct refutations to pro's claims.

2. Con's round three rebuttals successfully address pro's three contentions (although they could have been countered pretty easily). Pro's response in round four consists almost entirely of speculation and generalities that have absolutely no evidentiary weight. Con's rebuttals stand.

3. Con's round four calculation of utility addressed the heart of the entire debate (as pro had framed it) -- if pro contends that more lives are saved than lost by abolishing firearms, that arithmetic should have initially appeared in his round one argument, not con's round four, where pro is not able to bring con's methods and tabulation into dispute.

4. Pro essentially concedes the 'gun accidents' contention ... or at least allows con to defang his point without much protest.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.

I thought about writing out why this was wrong, but I don't even care. Bsh1's RFD was not 100% right, but it was more right than it was wrong and 00ike's comment is patently misguided.

What exactly is the purpose of making a post like this?
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:28:48 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 1:25:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:28:30 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

That is wrong.

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated.

That is wrong.

He retains the full burden by default.

That is manifestly wrong.

Con is to demonstrate that pro has not successfully affirmed the resolution and he needn't affirm the negative claim. Con's round three rebuttals should have been stated in round two. Con's positive arguments in round two were entirely superfluous. It also appears that those arguments were essentially ignored thereafter by both contenders, excepting those cases in which Con repurposed those contentions as direct refutations to pro's claims.

2. Con's round three rebuttals successfully address pro's three contentions (although they could have been countered pretty easily). Pro's response in round four consists almost entirely of speculation and generalities that have absolutely no evidentiary weight. Con's rebuttals stand.

3. Con's round four calculation of utility addressed the heart of the entire debate (as pro had framed it) -- if pro contends that more lives are saved than lost by abolishing firearms, that arithmetic should have initially appeared in his round one argument, not con's round four, where pro is not able to bring con's methods and tabulation into dispute.

4. Pro essentially concedes the 'gun accidents' contention ... or at least allows con to defang his point without much protest.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.

I thought about writing out why this was wrong, but I don't even care. Bsh1's RFD was not 100% right, but it was more right than it was wrong and 00ike's comment is patently misguided.

What exactly is the purpose of making a post like this?

I don't like it when people who are wrong correct people who are not wrong. Also, Ike's understanding of BOP's is absurd.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:28:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default. Con is to demonstrate that pro has not successfully affirmed the resolution and he needn't affirm the negative claim. Con's round three rebuttals should have been stated in round two. Con's positive arguments in round two were entirely superfluous. It also appears that those arguments were essentially ignored thereafter by both contenders, excepting those cases in which Con repurposed those contentions as direct refutations to pro's claims.

2. Con's round three rebuttals successfully address pro's three contentions (although they could have been countered pretty easily). Pro's response in round four consists almost entirely of speculation and generalities that have absolutely no evidentiary weight. Con's rebuttals stand.

3. Con's round four calculation of utility addressed the heart of the entire debate (as pro had framed it) -- if pro contends that more lives are saved than lost by abolishing firearms, that arithmetic should have initially appeared in his round one argument, not con's round four, where pro is not able to bring con's methods and tabulation into dispute.

4. Pro essentially concedes the 'gun accidents' contention ... or at least allows con to defang his point without much protest.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.

This is honestly the dumbest thing I have heard in a while
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:30:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 1:28:50 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:47:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Con is clearly the victor -- there are problems with bsh1's voting criteria. I may provide a formal RFD and vote later, but just a few brief (or not so brief) notes about this debate:

1. Pro is advancing a positive claim and does not specify in round one how the burden of proof would be allocated. He retains the full burden by default. Con is to demonstrate that pro has not successfully affirmed the resolution and he needn't affirm the negative claim. Con's round three rebuttals should have been stated in round two. Con's positive arguments in round two were entirely superfluous. It also appears that those arguments were essentially ignored thereafter by both contenders, excepting those cases in which Con repurposed those contentions as direct refutations to pro's claims.

2. Con's round three rebuttals successfully address pro's three contentions (although they could have been countered pretty easily). Pro's response in round four consists almost entirely of speculation and generalities that have absolutely no evidentiary weight. Con's rebuttals stand.

3. Con's round four calculation of utility addressed the heart of the entire debate (as pro had framed it) -- if pro contends that more lives are saved than lost by abolishing firearms, that arithmetic should have initially appeared in his round one argument, not con's round four, where pro is not able to bring con's methods and tabulation into dispute.

4. Pro essentially concedes the 'gun accidents' contention ... or at least allows con to defang his point without much protest.

Overall, con's arguments are all fantastically weak and can be invalidated with a few well-chosen sources and statistics (focusing outward on gun statistics in other countries would have been helpful in this regard). Pro, however, adduces no such evidence, and therefore abdicates his burden.

This is honestly the dumbest thing I have heard in a while

Indeed. 00ike doesn't know how to judge, though. He's not stupid, per se, just profoundly ignorant.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:23:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"A study done in Philadelphia had two groups: one who possessed firearms and one who did not. At the end of the study, those who owned firearms were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not own firearms [1].

Thus, 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. "

Try again.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 2:09:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:23:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A study done in Philadelphia had two groups: one who possessed firearms and one who did not. At the end of the study, those who owned firearms were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not own firearms [1].

Thus, 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. "

Try again.

Philadelphia is a crime and gang ridden city. It'll be like me doing the same study in Vietnam. Are soldiers had guns and many of them were killed anyway.
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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 8:14:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 2:09:43 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:23:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A study done in Philadelphia had two groups: one who possessed firearms and one who did not. At the end of the study, those who owned firearms were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not own firearms [1].

Thus, 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. "

Try again.

Philadelphia is a crime and gang ridden city. It'll be like me doing the same study in Vietnam. Are soldiers had guns and many of them were killed anyway.

I don't see why that would make a difference. I was referencing the fact that the argument falsely assumes that because gun owners were more likely to be shot, owning a gun is dangerous. That would only be implied if you started with two identical populations and gave one of them guns and the other no guns. People who own guns are not necessarily a representative sample. In fact, they're probably not.