Instigator / Pro
3
1494
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1277

Gun Bans are Stupid

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

A friendly but passionate debate about gun bans.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

To start I want to say I enjoyed the debate, and I agree with Pro on this issue strongly. I think it was cool to see such a close debate, hope to see more of "Loverof12343."

Pro R1
-Guns Stop tyrannical governments
-As guns have become more powerful, crime has plummeted
-Even if there is gun crime, most of it takes place in Gun free zones
-There are alternative methods to kill somebody
-Horrible determined criminals will just buy guns on the black market
-California gun ban makes resulted in more homicides.

My Note 1-Very solid arguments to prove the benefits of having guns in a society is good, sadly that isn't what the resolution is.

My Note 2-Pro doesn't source anything here, I've got no reason to believe she hasn't fabricated everything she's just stated. As a result, the "Which participant provided the most reliable sources" mark will go to Oromagi. This isn't only because of this round, she fails to source ANY of her claims during the entirety of the debate, making her points impossible to fact check, thus hindering Pro's argumennts. This wouldn't matter if Oromagi also didn't source, but, Oromagi brings fourth sourced claims from reputable sites.

Con R1- Sadly Oromagi miss posted, no arguments to be seen, meaning Pro easily won this round. Seeing it was an honest mistake, this won't hurt his conduct mark.

Pro R2- Pro doesn't state much, just how in certain situations, she personally would like a gun there. Her lack of arguments is largely a result of Her opponent not leaving anything to rebut.

Con R2- Con states how Pro doesn't prove how gun bans are stupid, I agree, but she proved that the removal of guns is nonsensical to some degree, although she should've gone a little deeper to prove this further.

Also, Con kindly sources Pro's California point for her. But, he also refutes it. Con states how the murder rate didn't change significantly in California during the gun ban.

Con continues by pointing out how pro's claim about increased sales of more advanced guns correlates with a decrease in crime. Con points out how gun ownership has actually DECREASED.

Con also points out how pro is incorrect when she stated guns make people safer. He points out how the opposite is true, and you're more likely to be shot if you poses a firearm.

The round ends with Con stating how Pro's claims are unsourced and/or false.

Pro Forfeits, THATS'S POOR CONDUCT.

Con R3-Con states how as a result of a machine gun ban in America, Machine gun caused homicides were so low they were weren't even tracked in some cases. Thus also proving illegal purchasing of firearms doesn't skyrocket as a result of a gun ban, or else we'd be seeing illegaly purchased machine guns killing more people. This also shows how a gun ban can work AND ISN'T STUPID.

Pro doesn't prove gun bans are stupid, while con does convince me gun bans aren't stupid.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I’d like to start off by thanking both participants for the debate. Afterall without you guys I wouldn’t have a debate to vote on.

All formalities aside I’ll now begin my vote.

Sources:

Con has used many sources to strengthen his claims such as by providing a clear statistic that illustrates that increased gun bans in california by FBI statistics have aided in a lower crime rate.

While Pro on the other hand makes up various claims such as

Uncited Claim # 1:

“ If a person wants a gun, they will always be able to get it, especially from illigament sources!”

Uncited Claim # 2: While there are 34,000 firearm-related deaths in the US per year, there are 600,000 abortions.

Not to mention numerous sources Pro Cites in R1 that he doesn’t link but cites such as,

“Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation!”

“ Since then, through 2012, it has decreased 49%, to a 42-year low, including a 52% drop in the nation’s murder rate, to a 49-year low--perhaps the lowest point in American history."

Consequently this poor sourcing as made voting on this debate rather cumbersome as I’m unable to verify all of Pro’s sources they used.

While comparatively, Con provided a clear source section with links to each on as they’re used.

Therefore due to Pro’s poor sourcing and Con’s clear and precise sources, I must award the sources point to Con.

Moving right along to Arguments.

Arguments:

As I’ve previously demonstrated, all of the Pro's claims are unable to be verifiable due to them either not linking them in the argument or not citing the source altogether.

Which drastically hurts their argument due to unreliable evidence used by Pro.

Not only this but also Pro’s forfeit on the 3rd round have essentially made Con’s round 2 rebuttals uncontested.

Ultimately Con’s undisputed R2 rebuttal and Pro’s evidence being unverifiable have rendered Pro’s argument as insufficient and Cons as comprehensible due to their verifiable claims and clear rebuttal of all of Pro’s claims.

Due to this, I must award the arguments point to Con.

All other points tied, both had decent conduct and decent spelling and grammar.