Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

RFD - The United States Ought to Ban Firearms

Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:05:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Find following my RFD for the debate at http://www.debate.org...

Pro's presentation

Pro begins the case be defining framework as a utilitarian one, but doesn't explain why this need be the case until the final round, suggesting that life should be valued higher than Con's suggested liberty framework in rebuttal, as life is more valuable than liberty. Interestingly, Con appears to argue within the framework of utilitarianism for most of the debate. Con drops this in the final round, so both frameworks shall be considered, but utilitarianism shall be considered more highly. My analysis will be entirely utilitarian unless noted otherwise.

Pro continues on to show what a plan may look like in order to conceive of a US that decides to enact the resolution, which didn't seem necessary in an "ought" debate. Pro boxes himself out of some potential ground here. Con takes advantage of this in his "undemocratic, and leads to a police state" opener discussed further, some of which may not have been considered otherwise.

Suicide

Pro presents evidence of suicide, showing increased suicide mortality in homes with firearms. Pro makes case that firearm suicides are often successful, while other most common methods of suicide have under a 5% mortality rate. I found the second part of this claim incredulous, and could not find in the sources where this was the case, as other common methods such as drowning, hanging, suffocation, or fall all had much higher mortality rates than this, but con at no point addresses this error, so unfortunately for Con, the argument stands as is.

Con mitigates some of the case for suicide in rebuttal, demonstrating that a ban may not reduce suicides with sources showing gun restricted areas having higher rates of suicide. Pro's counter then is that a ban would be moral, but neither participant suggested a moral framework be more considered, only utilitarian or liberty. I suppose instead, "moral" here means "that which would provide the most utility," in which case this argument is just tautological/circular. Pro further counters saying that Con is showing a likelihood and not a certainty, and that Con's argument shows correlation and not causation, while I'm left uncertain if Pro ever provided in his own case evidence that wasn't mere correlation. Con drops.

Pro takes clear victory on this exchange, regardless of the portion where the mortality statistic is in error. I find that victory lacking enough to warrant the resolution. Perhaps banning rope may also similarly save lives from suicide by hanging, but I doubt reasonable people would come to the conclusion that a ban of rope is "ought" on that evidence alone, even on an entirely utilitarian basis. For this reason, I don't weigh Pro's victory on this exchange very highly.

Accidents

Pro's next case is accidents, and presents the potential of 19,000 lives saved annually if the resolution were enacted. Con almost entirely mitigates the entirety of this argument, demonstrating that statistic conflates accidents along with other firearm related deaths like suicide already discussed, and turns the source to show the impact being small at 505. Pro concedes this error, and makes the claim that there are still 15,000 injuries annually.

Pro is the victor with this exchange, but with very little weight for the same reasoning as suicides.

Crime

In the final portion of the opening presentation, Pro makes an argument where issues of crime should be considered for the resolution. Pro reasons that if the resolution were enacted, criminals would have to resort to other means that would be less fatal, but doesn't provide citation to back up this reasoning. While this presentation isn't specifically addressed by Con, Con's opening arguments provide sourced information counter to it discussed below.

Con's presentation

Self-defense

Con demonstrates several different sources showing hundreds of thousands of times annually where non-criminal citizens utilize firearms in order to protect lives and property. Pro's rebut is a single citation that the possession of a firearm is correlated to being shot. This line is dropped by both after this exchange. It appears that pro attempts to rebut the tremendous amount of utility granted by self defensive uses by a non-criminal element with a correlation statistic that appears to be neutral to the criminal status of the individuals studied. Con wins this exchange, though I would have liked to see this argument have been addressed more from both sides. I weigh the content this exchange higher than the previous.

Gun bans have lead to increased crime

Con shows a couple of examples, DC and England, attempting the resolution being enacted, with disastrous results to crime rates. Pro's rebuttal suggests that correlation does not mean causation, and lists multiple possible confounding variables, but doesn't cite any counter examples where the resolution was instead successful. While Pro may have cast some doubts on this argument, it is not completely mitigated. Con wins this exchange, and this is a very highly weighted, since it deals with examples where the resolution was attempted and turning out to be a worse situation within the framework.

Hurts the economy

Con shows potential employment, economic activity, and tax revenue losses that would result from a gun ban. Pro indicates a study showing social costs to firearm ownership with an amount exceeding Con's evidence. Pro indicated the economic impacts are not as important as lives. Con also seemingly argues against himself here, because Con demonstrated that a ban would increase costs to firearms, but doesn't show that a ban would reduce or eliminate the social costs cited in the source provided. This exchange is a bit convoluted so I'm calling it a toss-up, but this segment is my least weighted of them all for the reasoning Pro indicated.

Will create a bigger black market for guns

Con shows 93% of firearms that are involved in crime are already illegally owned, so a ban wouldn't solve this issue. Pro indicates that since manufacturing is required for firearm production, a ban may be fruitful where other bans have not. Con counters citing 16,000 gunsmiths who manufacture firearms privately, 3d printing, and the existence of hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation. Con clearly wins this exchange, with moderate weight to the resolution.

Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state

Con demonstrates a base of public opinion that is counter to the resolution, potential for tyranny, unlikelihood of compliance, and difficulty in circumventing constitutional guarantees. Pro rightfully points out public opinion and legislative difficulties doesn't matter in an "ought" debate, and drops the tyranny issue. Pro mitigates all of opinion and legislative difficulties. Tyranny is one of the few times when the liberty framework comes into play, and Con comes out ahead since it goes unaddressed.

Regarding compliance, Pro attempts to mitigate by stating that people are generally law abiding, without citation. The self defense statistic Con cited previously, along with the crime segment in Pro's opener, shows significant exceptions. If Con wanted to claim crime was too insignificant to merit discussion, it wouldn't have wrapped up the opening round.
Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
....continued from above
For those reasons, while Pro did win some of the exchanges, the victor for the debate goes to Con. I would like to thank the participants for an enjoyable debate.
Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:50:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:25:10 AM, YYW wrote:
Every single thing about this RFD is wrong.

So...you think Con had the better exchange regarding suicide, for example?

Who are you?

Ron Swanson.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:00:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 2:58:26 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/16/2016 10:11:14 PM, Beane666 wrote:

What is your actual/old account?

Whoever he is, he is an utterly bad voter.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 5:53:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Really?
Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 12:49:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 5:53:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Really?

Yes, really.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 12:59:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Then you should avail yourself to learn to vote objectively, as here you have plainly and clearly failed to do that.

See my RFD for a correct evaluation of the debate.
Tsar of DDO
Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:36:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 12:59:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Then you should avail yourself to learn to vote objectively, as here you have plainly and clearly failed to do that.

See my RFD for a correct evaluation of the debate.

I remain completely unconvinced.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:40:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:36:46 PM, Beane666 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 12:59:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Then you should avail yourself to learn to vote objectively, as here you have plainly and clearly failed to do that.

See my RFD for a correct evaluation of the debate.

I remain completely unconvinced.

The fact that you are even referring to what "you" are or are not convinced of is sufficient evidence of your total failure and lack of ability to fairly and correctly judge a debate.
Tsar of DDO
Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 9:51:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:40:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:36:46 PM, Beane666 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 12:59:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Then you should avail yourself to learn to vote objectively, as here you have plainly and clearly failed to do that.

See my RFD for a correct evaluation of the debate.

I remain completely unconvinced.

The fact that you are even referring to what "you" are or are not convinced of is sufficient evidence of your total failure and lack of ability to fairly and correctly judge a debate.

I remain unconvinced because had it actually been the case that any lack of objectivity was "plain and clear" it would have been simple to demonstrate. Instead of that courtesy, so far the criticism you've provided has been unsubstantiated and provided with undesirable ad hominem.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 9:51:00 PM, Beane666 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:40:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:36:46 PM, Beane666 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 12:59:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Then you should avail yourself to learn to vote objectively, as here you have plainly and clearly failed to do that.

See my RFD for a correct evaluation of the debate.

I remain completely unconvinced.

The fact that you are even referring to what "you" are or are not convinced of is sufficient evidence of your total failure and lack of ability to fairly and correctly judge a debate.

I remain unconvinced because had it actually been the case that any lack of objectivity was "plain and clear" it would have been simple to demonstrate. Instead of that courtesy, so far the criticism you've provided has been unsubstantiated and provided with undesirable ad hominem.

Would you like me to do a TRW with your RFD?

TRW is where I explain each and every reason in a very public setting why you were wrong, and why you're an incompetent judge.

I am willing to do that, if you do not change your vote.
Tsar of DDO
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:25:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:51:00 PM, Beane666 wrote:

Lol. A TRW? Sounds like fun.

@Ron Swanson, what's your multi? Lol
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Beane666
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:12:51 AM
Posted: 3 months ago

Would you like me to do a TRW with your RFD?


Considering your evaluation so far has immediately resorted to ad hominem and then has uselessly provided nothing further of substance, I'm going to decline based on a lack of interest.

@Ron Swanson, what's your multi? Lol

Asked and answered.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:05:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:25:24 PM, YYW wrote:
Would you like me to do a TRW with your RFD?

/in

But seriously -- I would really like you to explain your problems with my vote. It'll certainly help me, and if you're willing to do it, I seriously appreciate it.
"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
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"life is more valuable than liberty. "
! WTF is wrong with you!......That is SISSY and a totally unAmerican attitude.
Besides, what you really have a problem with is guns are used in hunting. You liberal sissy boys think that a recreational activity based on the idea that it's fun to kill animals is unacceptable.
Guns are an integral part of the American way of life. Do you know why America has never lost a war? Because so many of our citizens have learned how to aim a gun before they entered the army.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:56:24 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
"life is more valuable than liberty. "
! WTF is wrong with you!......That is SISSY and a totally unAmerican attitude.
Besides, what you really have a problem with is guns are used in hunting. You liberal sissy boys think that a recreational activity based on the idea that it's fun to kill animals is unacceptable.
Guns are an integral part of the American way of life. Do you know why America has never lost a war? Because so many of our citizens have learned how to aim a gun before they entered the army.

damn sissy liberals
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:40:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:56:24 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
"life is more valuable than liberty. "
! WTF is wrong with you!......That is SISSY and a totally unAmerican attitude.
Besides, what you really have a problem with is guns are used in hunting. You liberal sissy boys think that a recreational activity based on the idea that it's fun to kill animals is unacceptable.
Guns are an integral part of the American way of life. Do you know why America has never lost a war?
Just so you know, we've lost four wars. but we have won the vast majority.
Because so many of our citizens have learned how to aim a gun before they entered the army.
I don't have a signature. :-)
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:47:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I didn't say won every war, I said never lost a war. Is that the same.
Like in the war of 1812, things went badly for our side, but the war was ended by negotiation, we didn't lose it, although you Brits might say that we didn't win it either.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 8:16:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:25:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:51:00 PM, Beane666 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:40:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:36:46 PM, Beane666 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 12:59:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2016 4:52:11 AM, Beane666 wrote:
What is your actual/old account?

This is the only account I've ever used on this site.

Then you should avail yourself to learn to vote objectively, as here you have plainly and clearly failed to do that.

See my RFD for a correct evaluation of the debate.

I remain completely unconvinced.

The fact that you are even referring to what "you" are or are not convinced of is sufficient evidence of your total failure and lack of ability to fairly and correctly judge a debate.

I remain unconvinced because had it actually been the case that any lack of objectivity was "plain and clear" it would have been simple to demonstrate. Instead of that courtesy, so far the criticism you've provided has been unsubstantiated and provided with undesirable ad hominem.

Would you like me to do a TRW with your RFD?


Me also

TRW is where I explain each and every reason in a very public setting why you were wrong, and why you're an incompetent judge.

I am willing to do that, if you do not change your vote.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka