The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

You Choose The Topic!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,450 times Debate No: 84455
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




R1- Suggests to me 4 different, legit topics.
R2- I chose one and you write "I accept"
R3- Arguments
R4- Refutations
R5- Summaries

*I may edit the wording of the topic.

I look forward to a great debate!


1) Gun rights. Specifically, in line with recent events in the US, I'd want to debate whether assault weapons should remain legal in the United States. (I am for gun rights.)

2) Capital Punishment (My position is for the Death Penalty)

3) Legalized Prostitution (My claim is it should be legal)

4) Affirmative action in schools and jobs (My claim is that it should be abolished.)

Bonus: dubs vs subs. (My claim would be that subs are superior).
Debate Round No. 1


Wonderful. So, since I may change the wording to whatever topic I choose out of the 4... I choose the topic on capital punishment

The exact wording will be: Abolish Capital Punishment

I will be con and you will be pro.

I look forward to a great debate!


The instigator has re-proposed that topic, which has been changed to "Abolish Gun Right" (see comments)

I accept.
Debate Round No. 2


The opposition does not want guns to be completely banned, so the following is our plan:

1. Make ths use of guns much more regulated. Instead of no gun laws, we could regulate gun rights.

2. In order to make guns more safe, we can give people who want guns "tests". Before they can purchase a gun, the person must prove that they are trustworthy. That will me done by a series of steps which will include a psych evaluation, the reason to own a gun and a license.

3. If the person has passed these, he will be educated on how to prevent accidental homicides and make sure that he knows how to handle the gun properly.

Why Not Just Ban Guns? I will explain.

Contention #1- Banning Will Formulate A Black Market. Restricting Will Not.

[1]Black markets, also called shadow markets, come about when people want to exchange goods or services that are prohibited by governments. Black markets skew economic data, as transactions are unrecorded. Black markets also arise when people don't want to pay taxes on the transaction for legal or illegal goods or services. Some black markets exist simply because people don't realize there are laws they aren't following, such as bartering and not reporting the taxable value of the transaction, or hiring a regular housekeeper or babysitter, but failing to pay employment taxes.

The licensing restrictions that governments impose on numerous occupations cause some workers to enter the black market because they don't want or can't afford to invest the time and money to obtain required licenses. For example, in New York City, one must purchase a license called a medallion in order to legally operate a taxi business. These medallions cost more than $600,000, making them prohibitively expensive for most entrepreneurs. As a result, some people may choose to operate black-market taxis without a license - at least, until they are caught.

Making guns completely illegal will cause the black market to form. The bad men will still get their guns. The way to stop this however is by just implementing stricter policies for gun ownership. There will be much less need for a black market because the majority (the sane) will receive a gun legally. With this formation on guns, the black market would be smaller than one caused by a strict ban.

The black market will only form when majority- sane want something illegal. However, when the sane are able to get the guns, a black market will not form.

Contention #2- Gun bans have been attempted in other nations. They have not worked.

[2]The deadly shooting in San Bernardino happened in a state with some of the nation's toughest gun laws: California bars assault weapons, blocks the sale of large-capacity magazines and requires universal background checks for all gun purchases.

Authorities say they believe attackers Syed Rizwan Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik had legally obtained two handguns and that two rifles were also legally purchased in California. Federal officials say the attackers had large-capacity magazines that violate California law in their SUV.

Since the attack Wednesday at a social service center in Southern California, the state's strict laws and the apparent legal purchase of the weapons have set off a debate over the effectiveness of gun measures and whether getting tougher would help prevent more violence.

California had a full gun ban and that was a complete fail. Regulation- the answer key.To control guns properly would be to give them, but with restriction.

Lets look at some nations that did not ban guns. They placed logical restrictions and their crime rate did fall.


" Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).

" Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.

" Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).

" France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).

Contention #3- The Constitution and Its Contents

[4] The Second Amendment is the most important right, because the Second Amendment keeps the government from being able to impose tyranny. Also the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, without the government being able to take the right away. Last without the Second Amendment all the others are useless, it is a guarantee to the people that we have the right to bear arms, it keeps the government from taking a way our rights, because we can resist.

The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist. Stated in the Cuba Constitution, "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution." This is what our Second amendment gives us the right to do"protect our government. With the second amendment we can fight tyranny, but without it our government could be over thrown.

Completely repealing this amendment will open doors for corruption and tyranny. The amendment was in place to protect us. A logical regulation will not result in a dramatical loss- just a safer society. A ban however, has certain risks that we can not take in order to safeguard our democracy.

The purpose of the Constitution:

[5] The Constitution:

Creates a government that puts the power in the hands of the people
Separates the powers of government into three branches: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch, which executes the laws; and the judicial branch, which interprets the laws
Sets up a system of checks and balances that ensures no one branch has too much power
Divides power between the states and the federal government
Describes the purposes and duties of the government
Defines the scope and limit of government power
Prescribes the system for electing representatives
Establishes the process for the document"s ratification and amendment
Outlines many rights and freedoms of the people
Dear judges, the propositions plan will be to edit the gun rights to make the society much more safer while protecting the citizens and letting people have guns- as long as they meet the logical requirements.

Contention #4- Guns are not a significant cause of death.

According to WHO (world health organization), there are 7.4 million deaths related to heart disease, 6.7 million deaths from stroke, and 1.5 million deaths from HIV/AIDS. On the other hand, gun deaths a year only amount to approximately 33,000 deaths according to the CDC. Also according to the CDC, approximately 34,000 people are killed in car wrecks.

You see these shokcing statistics. And yet, no one ever wants a ban on sex or cars. How are guns different?

Vote pro.



To clarify, I am debating the Pro position, and Forever23 is debating Con, so I fully support Forever23 when she says "Vote Pro." Additionally, Con seems to have misunderstood the topic of debate, even though she personally selected and reworded this topic. This is not a debate on whether we should ban all guns, it is a debate over whether owning guns is a right.

I will argue that owning guns should not be a fundamental right; instead, it should be a privilege that can be given and redacted. Unlike the right to a fair trial, which is something every person should have, there are clearly individuals who should not be permitted to own guns, in particular those who pose a danger to others. We have a similar policy for car use, and I claim that someone with a criminal record should not be allowed to own a gun for the same reason a driver with many DUIs should not be permitted to use a car: they are a danger to those around them. Furthermore, unlike cars, guns are not a necessity in society today. Thus, if being having a car is not a universal right (which it is not), clearly we do not have the right to bear arms.

Con cites the second amendment in the US Constitution, which would be excellent evidence if we were debating whether the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected in the United States. However, the debate is over whether it should be a right; in other words, whether the right to bear arms should be in the constitution at all. I note that in many other countries, citizens do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Furthermore, very few countries have a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. [1]

Lastly, in arguing for gun control, which explicitly denies the "right" to bear arms to a significant portion of the population, Con has presented evidence in agreement with my position. Vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 3


In this debate, I think that pro experienced a bit of a misconception.

The topic is Abolish the Gun Rights

Abolish is defined as ban. Therefore, in this debate, we are looking to confiscate guns from every day civilians.

I am con and pro is pro.

So to begin to refute my opponents claims.

My opponent argues how gun rights should be a privilege given only to those who deserve it. That is exactly what I am saying. Pro has conceded. Guns should be given to civilians only if they pass certain testing to confirm that they can properly handle a gun. Here is my counter plan to oppose a ban on guns as the pro argues.

1. Make the use of guns much more regulated. Instead of no gun laws, we could regulate gun rights.

2. In order to make guns more safe, we can give people who want guns "tests". Before they can purchase a gun, the person must prove that they are trustworthy. That will me done by a series of steps which will include a psych evaluation, the reason to own a gun and a license.

3. If the person has passed these, he will be educated on how to prevent accidental homicides and make sure that he knows how to handle the gun properly.

To continue on my plan:
1. Gun safety: Establish a culture of gun safety. As the nation on earth with the most guns, we must make sure people are protected. As a starting point, let's insist on mandatory training and licensing along with safe-and secure-gun storage. This training should not be a one-time affair. Gun owners should be required to regularly refresh their training and renew their permits, with requirements at least as stringent as those governing renewal of your driver's license.
2. Mental health treatment: Ensure accessible, high quality, culturally competent and widely accessed mental health treatment in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. While gun ownership has been rising, mental health services across the country have been slashed. We must face this challenge head on, reduce the stigma associated with mental health needs, and support our children, friends, family members and neighbors in seeking-and obtaining-high-quality treatment.
3. Trauma reduction: Reduce children's exposure to violence and address the impact of trauma by implementing recommendations from the Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. From the report: "Our children are experiencing and witnessing violence on an alarming scale...The good news is that we know what works to address children's exposure to violence."
4. Sensible gun laws: Ban high capacity magazines, expand the 24 hour gun background check to make it universal, and reinstitute the assault weapons ban immediately. We must insist that assault weapons have no place beyond the battlefield-not in our schools, not in our movie theaters, not in our places of worship, not in our streets and communities.
5. Comprehensive solutions: Charge the Department of Justice; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration; and the Department of Education to identify solutions in 90 days. With input from young people, community members, the faith community and others, these agencies should jointly identify the root causes of this country's more than 16,000 homicides a year and develop a set of recommendations to address them. The next step will be to implement these recommendations with policies, legislation and actions.
6. Safe communities: Support citywide planning and implementation of comprehensive violence prevention plans that include prevention, intervention, enforcement, rehabilitation and reentry. A growing research base demonstrates that it is possible to prevent shootings, killings and violence in the long term. Yet our communities lack the resources to do what is needed. Passage of the Youth Promise Act would help make our communities safer. We must commit to helping communities identify and implement solutions.
7. Public health solutions: Recognize gun violence as a critical and preventable public health problem. Gun violence is a leading cause of premature death in the country. Yet, unlike other preventable causes of death, we haven't mustered the political will to address it. We should establish a National Institute of Violence Prevention at NIH to research root causes and community solutions. We should fund the CDC to develop its infrastructure so it can track, assess and develop strategies to prevent gun violence, just as we do with tainted spinach and influenza.

My opponent next stated that very few countries have declared this right an constiutional. Very few have, absolutely. But are any of these nations the USA? No. Italy is not US. France is not US. Their nations and governments run differently. This debate is about the abolition of the second amendment and gun rights as a whole. And my point was that it was in the constitution for a reason.

All of my opponent's claims were completely irrelevant.

Vote con



From Con's response, it is clear that Con had intended the topic to be "Abolish private gun ownership," and the wording she originally choose was an accident. However, Con is obligated to debate the topic she had chosen. She cannot redefine words in the English language to suit her purpose. By refusing to abide by her own topic, Con has effectively forfeited this debate.

Con claims the word "abolish" means "to ban." First, it is not possible to "ban" a right. Secondly, this is not the dictionary definition, and the top three Google results for "definition of abolish" define the word as follows:

Abolish (verb): to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void " []
Abolish (verb): formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution). " [Oxford dictionary]
Abolish (transitive verb): to end the observance or effect of : annul " [Merriam Webster]

In other words, to abolish something is to put an end to it. In the United States, abolishing Gun Rights, in other words, ending the RIGHT to own guns, would mean repealing the Second Amendment. On the other hand, abolishing Gun Ownership would stop people from owning guns.

To show that Con's definition is ridiculous, let's suppose the government abolished freedom of speech. It does not mean, as Con's definition implies, that people could no longer speak. It only means the government is allowed to ban speech if they wished. They might ban certain topics, they might ban all topics, or they might not ban anything at all, in which case citizens could still speak on any topic of their choosing. Quite simply, even if you don't have to right to do something (for example, Con and I don't have the 'right' to debate on this website) you are still able to so long as the government (or in my example, the site admin) does not ban it.

Thus, ending the right to own guns is very different from ending gun ownership.
Debate Round No. 4


No pro, it was not incorrect wording.

Gun Rights are defined as- "Of, pertaining to, or supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns. Opposed to the restriction of gun ownership and carry. (US) Belief that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an absolute right." (yourdictionary)

Abolish- formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).

So, I believe that that clears the fog and it is my opponent who has misunderstood the debate topic.

So, this debate means: That we must formerly put an end to the institution of our right to own and carry guns.

Since my opponent has not given me anything else to refute, I will proceed with my speech.

Vote con.


The definition Con sites very clearly contradicts her position. Con's definition is:

"Of, pertaining to, or supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns. Opposed to the restriction of gun ownership and carry. "

I repeat. "Opposed to the restriction of gun ownership and carry." Con is arguing for Gun Rights in this debate, and her own definition states that she should be opposed to restricting gun ownership. Yet Con has been arguing in favor of gun ownership. Secondly, the definition clearly states that is is the "individual RIGHT to own and carry guns." This goes back to my argument on rights, an argument Con has not addressed.

Lastly, in order to show that Con simply has no case against me, the site Con uses, , gives two definitions for 'gun rights': one for when it is used as a noun, and the other when it is used as an adjective. Con gives the adjective definition, but in the phrase "Abolish Gun Rights", the phrase is used as a noun. Con cited the wrong one. The definition she should have used is:

"The entitlement of individuals to own and carry guns." [1]

This is clearly in line with my claim, and it was poor sourcing that Con did not cite it.

Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
RFD 1/2

This was a very one sided debate to be honest. CON constructed a thorough case that showed that regulating guns would be much better than simply banning guns all together. She showed how this would insure all gun owners are informed gun owners. CON also shows how banning guns will form a black market, which will pretty much make guns impossible to track, and we'll never know if they're in the hands of criminals. CON also uses examples of tough gun control in California, and shows that the terrorists San Bernardino purchased their guns legally, despite the heavy restrictions, and managed bypass the law and get their hands on large capacity magazines. All of these contentions show that a gun ban is not as effective as gun regulation. But that wasn't really what was talked about for the majority of the debate. Most of it was arguing about the correct definitions of "abolishing gun rights." Now, this is pretty simply to sort out. First off, CON is the first one to give a definition, and she does so in R3. That abolish is defined as a ban. Technically since CON gave the first definition, by rule PRO has to abide by this definition. However continuing, in the final round, PRO states that the correct definition is "The entitlement of individuals to own and carry guns." Even if PRO's definition is the one used, they still lose the debate. Because in R2 PRO states that "there are clearly individuals who should not be permitted to own guns." Remember, PRO didn't object to the definition of ABOLISH, so we're going to CON's definition, which is TO BAN. PRO technically concedes this debate when they say that gun rights should only be a privilege. To have successfully argued for their side of the resolution, PRO had to have been arguing for a TOTAL GUN BAN, not a PARTIAL GUN BAN.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
RFD 2/2

However, since this was not the case, PRO's arguments were pretty much in line with CON's, and failed to refute CON's evidence of the effectiveness of gun regulation over a gun ban. Due to these reasons, I case my vote to CON.
Posted by Trarc 2 years ago
That's interesting. Do you prefer to debate things that are opposite of your beliefs? And yes, I will accept.
Posted by Forever23 2 years ago
I could go with "Abolish the Gun Rights"

You'll be pro and I will be con.


No kritiks
No trolling

in the debate
Posted by Trarc 2 years ago
Er, calling a referee is very common in debates. Perhaps it is different in your culture? I had no intention of offending you. My concern is that if we argue for a long time and then call the mods, I won't have time to write an argument if they rule in your favor.

But yes, I'm perfectly happy to resolve this on our own. Would you prefer to change the topic?
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
Well that is a bit unfair however there are no rules against unfair semantics. This ultimately means that if pro chooses not to argue the resolution then he loses. Of course pro has the opportunity for a Kritk which, if performed correctly, could win him the debate.
Posted by Forever23 2 years ago
Okay trarc. It is up to you if you want the mods to solve this issue (I personally think that calling them was absurd for they are great people. However, we can still fvcking resolve this on our own). Anyways, it is up to you. If you were not ready for this to happen, you should not have accepted.
Posted by Trarc 2 years ago
Your debate title explicitly states that the opponent can choose the topic, and that you are in the position "con". Don't worry about the rounds. If you are willing to change topics, I will specify the new topic when I write "I accept."

In case we can't come to an agreement, I've also asked for a moderator to arbitrate.
Posted by Forever23 2 years ago
Trarc, that is what changing the wording would be. I never reversed the meaning of the debate. We are still debating about gun rights. If you would like to discontinue, you can just ff all of the rounds. Plus, we cant restart the debate. There would not be enough rounds left.
Posted by Trarc 2 years ago
You did not specify you would also pick the position. "Changing the wording" of a phrase is quite different from "Reversing the meaning." My understanding was that you might change the scope of the debate, or specify the definition.

Is there any other topic you wish to debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a vote out of the Voter's Union. RFD IN COMMENTS - If either side has any issues with the vote feel free to let me know.