Guns
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Arganger
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 3/10/2018 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 4 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 651 times | Debate No: | 110498 | ||
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)
 Pro  Con Guns have only one reason to exist: To kill. Even in protection, they are meant to kill. Is it worth a person's life, just to prevent a petty crime? Most criminals have their whole life in front of them, and can change. Other protection exists in life, for example pepper spray. Though it may be less effective in some situations, it is still safe. Having very little risk to long term accidental harm. Childhood accidents due to guns are a real problem. Nearly 1,300 children die due to guns a year. Also, having guns means we also have a culture of violence. Should we not work on non violent solutions to problems, just as well tell our children to do? http://www.abc.net.au... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... |
 |
|
Pro Con You have shown no need for it to be a gun you use to protect yourself. In my house we have nunchucks. But if not, as most people, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife. And a gun can be used against you, easy. They just have to get to it first. If you had it locked up, you are likely to not be able to get to it in time. How about my own what if? What if someone forgets to lock their gun cabinet and their young child finds the gun, and accidentally shoots himself with it? Over 7,000 children get rushed to the ER every year because of guns. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by passwordstipulationssuck 4 years ago
| Alec2004 | Arganger | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Convincing arguments goes to con because pro did not refute any of cons points.
sources go to con because con provided sources while pro did not.
@DrAnomaly
You two realized I argued against what I agree with, right? Everything I mentioned I have a rebuttal for.
Here I argue closer to what I think:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...