Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

RFD: Gun ban (Hayd vs TUF)

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:09:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

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

TUF (Con) outlines a counterplan (register people with mental disabilities, annual recertification of firearms, and childproofing) in lieu of a ban. Also argues that gun bans won't stop the determined from getting them online, and that mass shootings are well planned and mass bombings can be set off with household objects.

Hayd (Pro) argues that guns facilitate suicides, homicides, and accidents. He counters that while people can still go to the black market for guns, it still presents a cost factor to the criminals. However, TUF had pre-empted this by saying that most mass shootings are a result of careful planning. Presenting a cost factor also definitely prevents law abiding citizens from getting guns while it may not prevent criminals from doing it. So, Pro only has suicides and accidents as his impacts. But Pro's argument that the black market is expensive and that criminals are poor stands. Pro negates counterplan by black market argument - since people that fail the test can simply get it on the black market.

TUF (Con) argues that people who want to suicide will do it anyways. He successfully negates Pro's cost argument. Addresses the supposed contradiction in his counterplan by pointing out that with his plan, law abiding citizens still have guns.

Hayd (Pro) counters that only seven percent of people who commit suicide attempt it again. He says that crimes that aren't premeditated can be avoided and that premeditative crimes are a small proportion of all crimes. Says that the majority of crime isn't done by mass murders.

----

So, here's where I'm at: TUF (Con) forfeits arguing for the status quo since he never brought up or implied that he wanted to defend it. I have a plan from Hayd and a counterplan from TUF and the winner is the person whose plan is... more desirable?

Neither of the debaters really weigh their impacts against each other so I'm left to do that work as a judge. I'll outline the plans and then go from there.

Hayd's plan: Ban guns
Benefits - reduces suicides. Only 7% of people who attempt suicide try it again so this has a pretty large effect in not allowing people with access to guns to commit suicide.

Reduces homicide. But only homicides that aren't premeditated. Hayd argues that this is a large percentage of homicides. I'm supposed to believe that these people who don't plan to commit homicide are going to pass those psychological tests that TUF is implementing, will carry their guns with them and will use them reactively to kill without premeditation. TUF mitigates this somewhat by saying stats aren't reliable.

Accidents. People won't use trigger locks because they need fast access.

TUF's plan: Implement checks
Benefits - this allows law abiding citizens who pass those psychological tests to have guns whereas under Hayd's plan, they can't.

So, what are the benefits of allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns? All TUF mentions is "protecting that constitutional clause that gives us safety from our government and others." He doesn't weigh the impacts of this in relation to Hayd's arguments.

-----
So, on TUF's side, I have the fact that law-abiding citizens still have guns and it protects some constitutional clause and that people can protect themselves. On Hayd's side I have 1. reduced suicides 2. reduced non-premeditated homicides which Hayd argues is a large percentage of homicides 3. prevent accidents. The impacts on Hayd's side are much better articulated whereas TUF spends the majority of the time mitigating these impacts but not really talking about why it's necessary to protect a constitutional clause or how guns help law abiding citizens protect themselves.

So, I vote Pro (Hayd).

My advice for TUF is to make a strong affirmative case. In the entire debate I never saw a strong case of "why we need guns." What benefits come from us law-abiding citizens having guns. It's the difference between offensive and defensive arguments and TUF's entire debate consisted only of defensive arguments. For reference, an offensive argument is one that gives the voter a reason to vote your side and those were lacking.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:55:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:09:21 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
My advice for TUF is to make a strong affirmative case. In the entire debate I never saw a strong case of "why we need guns." What benefits come from us law-abiding citizens having guns. It's the difference between offensive and defensive arguments and TUF's entire debate consisted only of defensive arguments. For reference, an offensive argument is one that gives the voter a reason to vote your side and those were lacking.

I appreciate the feedback. With character restrictions I actually had to edit out my original arguments but I did have an argument outlines with benefits. After reading everything I had and knowing I had to edit things out, I figured it would be more important to Refute all of pro's points and play a succesful Con role, as technically the bigger burden in proving why the government needs to ban something relied on Pro. I figure it would be more effective to devalue his arguments, and let the value of guns be assumed from qoutes I inserted around the debate "Personal safety, freedom from government and criminals, etc." That way I didn't have to use an entire argument for it, and have to cut my rebuttals short. It seems because I did this, it is severely biting me in the @ss. I don't know what I needed to cut out in hindsight. Maybe counter plans? I mean I wanted to run that argument going into the debate, and I thought it would do really well as it accomplishes the best of both worlds. Maybe I didn't need to go into specific details on it, and could have just phrased that argument somewhere like "I support adding counter-measures to deter crime while acknowledging that a blackmarket still is a factor in getting guns." That would have shortened the debate a bunch, and perhaps Pro wouldn't have put so much time into trying to debate a point I wasn't even disagreeing with, effectively dropping the argument.

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback, I just am dis-appointed this is really the main factor for almost everyone who has voted(s) decision.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 11:06:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:55:10 PM, TUF wrote:
I appreciate the feedback. With character restrictions I actually had to edit out my original arguments but I did have an argument outlines with benefits. After reading everything I had and knowing I had to edit things out, I figured it would be more important to Refute all of pro's points and play a succesful Con role, as technically the bigger burden in proving why the government needs to ban something relied on Pro. I figure it would be more effective to devalue his arguments, and let the value of guns be assumed from qoutes I inserted around the debate "Personal safety, freedom from government and criminals, etc." That way I didn't have to use an entire argument for it, and have to cut my rebuttals short. It seems because I did this, it is severely biting me in the @ss. I don't know what I needed to cut out in hindsight. Maybe counter plans? I mean I wanted to run that argument going into the debate, and I thought it would do really well as it accomplishes the best of both worlds. Maybe I didn't need to go into specific details on it, and could have just phrased that argument somewhere like "I support adding counter-measures to deter crime while acknowledging that a blackmarket still is a factor in getting guns." That would have shortened the debate a bunch, and perhaps Pro wouldn't have put so much time into trying to debate a point I wasn't even disagreeing with, effectively dropping the argument.

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback, I just am dis-appointed this is really the main factor for almost everyone who has voted(s) decision.

Yeah, your best shot would have been to re-organize your opening argument into something less defensive. You used very pre-emptive arguments like "stats don't prove anything" or "people can still get guns online even if they are banned." What you could have done was to make the necessity of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the central part of your argument and argue that we absolutely need them and that your counterplan achieves this but Hayd's plan doesn't. That way you would have been on a level playing field.

Here's a good debate by RoyLatham and wocambs (http://www.debate.org...). Notice how Pro provides substantive arguments right from the beginning.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 12:31:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 11:06:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:55:10 PM, TUF wrote:
I appreciate the feedback. With character restrictions I actually had to edit out my original arguments but I did have an argument outlines with benefits. After reading everything I had and knowing I had to edit things out, I figured it would be more important to Refute all of pro's points and play a succesful Con role, as technically the bigger burden in proving why the government needs to ban something relied on Pro. I figure it would be more effective to devalue his arguments, and let the value of guns be assumed from qoutes I inserted around the debate "Personal safety, freedom from government and criminals, etc." That way I didn't have to use an entire argument for it, and have to cut my rebuttals short. It seems because I did this, it is severely biting me in the @ss. I don't know what I needed to cut out in hindsight. Maybe counter plans? I mean I wanted to run that argument going into the debate, and I thought it would do really well as it accomplishes the best of both worlds. Maybe I didn't need to go into specific details on it, and could have just phrased that argument somewhere like "I support adding counter-measures to deter crime while acknowledging that a blackmarket still is a factor in getting guns." That would have shortened the debate a bunch, and perhaps Pro wouldn't have put so much time into trying to debate a point I wasn't even disagreeing with, effectively dropping the argument.

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback, I just am dis-appointed this is really the main factor for almost everyone who has voted(s) decision.

Yeah, your best shot would have been to re-organize your opening argument into something less defensive.You used very pre-emptive arguments like "stats don't prove anything" or "people can still get guns online even if they are banned."

One reason I really didn't like Con was starting the debate, just didn't make sense to me. I had to just assume the arguments he would make. Even with a split burden, it just sounds like a debate the person is advocating for a change in policy needs to start does it not? This was mentioned by tash as well in the comments, but hind sight is 20/20.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:09:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 12:31:09 AM, TUF wrote:

One reason I really didn't like Con was starting the debate, just didn't make sense to me. I had to just assume the arguments he would make. Even with a split burden, it just sounds like a debate the person is advocating for a change in policy needs to start does it not? This was mentioned by tash as well in the comments, but hind sight is 20/20.

Yeah, the format was a bit awkward. Why did you do it?
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:13:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 2:09:44 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/1/2016 12:31:09 AM, TUF wrote:

One reason I really didn't like Con was starting the debate, just didn't make sense to me. I had to just assume the arguments he would make. Even with a split burden, it just sounds like a debate the person is advocating for a change in policy needs to start does it not? This was mentioned by tash as well in the comments, but hind sight is 20/20.

Yeah, the format was a bit awkward. Why did you do it?

Bad judgement?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227