Ban guns in the U.S.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mharman
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 11/15/2017 | Category: | Miscellaneous | ||
| Updated: | 4 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,366 times | Debate No: | 105073 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)
 Pro  Con |
 |
|
Pro Con |
 |
|
Pro Con Criminals are already committing a crime, why would they care if they're committing another crime by using a gun to do it? They won't. II. Criminals are resourceful. Criminals are criminals. Even if you are successful in getting rid of guns for good, criminals will find other ways to kill people. They may use baseball bats, knives, hammers, cyanide, or an axe. It happened in London with knives [1]. III. Conceal and Carry Zones Ward off Criminals. Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you try to rob a store where you know the owner has a gun under the counter, or would you try to rob a store where you knew the owner didn't have a gun? I have an image for this as well. IV. Overall Crime Rate Goes Down in Places With No Anti Gun Laws. Here's some advice for you. Compare the crime rate of Bremen, IN [3] with the crime rate of Indianapolis, IN [2]. The crime rate in places where there are more adults with guns, the crime rate has gone DOWN. V. Peple Kill People. Guns don't kill people. The reality is that people kill people. A gun is just an inanimate object, it cannot fire without a human behind the trigger. Blaming the gun for a murder is ridiculous. VI. Innacurate Depiction of Gun Use. If you've seen the movies, or political cartoon made by liberals, chances are that you have seen superheroes of NRA members armed to the teeth with guns and this crazy look in their eyes. This is not what gun use looks like. VII. Political Megalomaniacs A lot of politicians who want to disarm you are only seeking to gain more power. "The best way to take over a country is to take away their guns first." -Adolf Hitler VIII. The Reasoning Behind the Second Amendment. The reason the Founding Fathers placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was in case the government had become corrupt, and We the People needed to rise up and defend freedom. Back when America was under the control of the British, the Colonists were not allowed to own guns, only the military was. The Founding Fathers had experinced the effects of this and added the Second Amendment to protect the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. SOURCES 1: http://www.bbc.com... 2: http://www.areavibes.com... 3: http://www.areavibes.com... |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
| Nataliewardwood | Mharman | 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: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is weak, boiling down to what they feel may potentially happen, namely there might be less shootings... Kitten weak as this is, con decided to not contest it, and waived the first and second rounds. Going for a cheap victory by waiting for closing remarks to even begin to build a case, which is not to be rewarded (imagine you hire a lawyer, and they pull this in court?); not only is it awful conduct, but we voters must only consider the debate when voting, when the final round has nothing to do with the actual debate leading up to it, it's our duty to reject it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.fqhyjzd2wxfi ... within con's attempt to cheat, is the Hitler card, using a made up quotation, a variant of ones that have long since been disproven (the closest actual quote was "let?s not have any native militia or native police").
Vote Placed by Coveny 4 years ago
| Nataliewardwood | Mharman | 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 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost the Conduct point for being snarky "Woooow, You're reaaallly good at this...". Life happens and we don't always have time to respond. Con didn't let time run out and bug the game though, and Pro should be thankful.
Con's BBC supports his claim that "Criminals are resourceful" point for Con for most reliable sources.
Pro's argument was emotion based with statements like "I believe", "I feel", "I do believe", and "in my opinion" making his whole argument his opinion. Pro also sent conflicting messages with "Everyone should have some sort of weapon for defense purposes only." and "every place in the U.S. had some sort of security, we would be more safe". I think Con could have done a better job with this, but there was no resistance, so it's a clear win for Con even though some of his points had holes in them.
>Reported vote: zmikecuber// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro didn't lay out any rules for what's allowed, it's ok for Con to post his arguments in Round 3, but it's still bad conduct. Of course, Con's arguments then go uncontested and its a pretty easy win, so conduct goes to Pro.
[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific arguments made by both sides and explain why those arguments produce the voted result. Simply stating that some arguments made by one side are uncontested is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
>Reported vote: The-Voice-of-Truth// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: con made the most convincing arguments that also went uncontested
[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to examine specific arguments made by both sides and explain why those arguments produce the voted result. Simply stating that some arguments made by one side are uncontested and "the most convincing" is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ragnar// Mod action: NOT Removed<
4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is weak, boiling down to what they feel may potentially happen, namely there might be less shootings... Kitten weak as this is, con decided to not contest it, and waived the first and second rounds. Going for a cheap victory by waiting for closing remarks to even begin to build a case, which is not to be rewarded (imagine you hire a lawyer, and they pull this in court?); not only is it awful conduct, but we voters must only consider the debate when voting, when the final round has nothing to do with the actual debate leading up to it, it's our duty to reject it. https://docs.google.com...... ... within con's attempt to cheat, is the Hitler card, using a made up quotation, a variant of ones that have long since been disproven (the closest actual quote was "let?s not have any native militia or native police").
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is allowed to assess arguments in the fashion presented above, particularly if they feel that a debater has engaged in behavior that is against the basic standards of debate. Both conduct and arguments are explained sufficiently within that frame of reference.
************************************************************************
Notice I did it as a percentage, so population number doesn't matter.