Instigator / Pro
0
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1484

Science has proven stricter gun laws can reduce crime

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

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

OoDart
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1518
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Description

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2 Science is how you prove truth and scientific study is fool proof and honest, not always right not always honest but the thing is if one study is wrong peer reviewed studies will point it out

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

To win here, pro must show a clear correlation between crime rate and gun laws. In the first round pro compares countries that suits his conclusion by showing a limit set of correlation. Con counters this by showing clearly indicative examples that show that the relationship is at least more complex than pro gives it credit for.

Pros rebuttal here is basically to double down on what amounts to cherry picking: saying that it’s not valid to compare different countries while, at the same time, basing his argument of comparing countries.

Given that the premise requires the establishment of correlation - pro falls substantially short, and as a result this must go to con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This vote is primarily advice for pro (or anyone wishing to learn from his mistakes).

While I congratulate pro for sweeping improvements (in that he's at least acknowledging the opposing case), a statement like "the data you provide is inaccurate its wrong irrlevant and not pertainant to the qustion at hand" needs to be followed or preceded by strong justification for why it's wrong and irrelevant. Which is a shame, because I actually see the attempt at doing that, but we voters do not quite take everything on face value of all opinions are equal...
"1)comparing nations is like comparing apples and oranges most undeveloped nations..." calling the UK and Canada underdeveloped is laughable (contextually, those were the counter examples con used, so the only ones in need of being challenged). Also trying to refute comparing nations, is to disagree with using social science to draw the conclusion to your case you are trying to support. The next point talks about how wrong it would have been if con compared the USA to countries he or she did not use in the comparison... At that point, you've lost my attention to assume the list of points is more than just a Gish Gallop to be skipped.

Using "much of the date you provided was simply incorrect" as not simply a closing statement, but an entire closing round, is in spirit conceding the absence of supporting evidence for your case.

Con on the other hand pretty well won with the simple statement "this debate is about whether or not strict gun laws reduce crime. In regards to this debate, the amount of deaths caused is irrelevant." He of course preceded it with evidence of the UK and Canada, otherwise it would be a nice reminder but not a game changer.