Instigator / Pro
7
1518
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#1558

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be changed

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 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
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Please read the full description before accepting.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pro: The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be changed.
Con: The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be changed.

Due to the nature of this debate, there isn't a full-on Burden of Proof for this resolution. It is more of an opinion than a fact.

Debate Format:
Round 1: Pro and con provide their arguments.
Round 2: Pro and con provide their rebuttals.
Round 3: Pro and con provide their concluding statements.

No trolls and no kritiks, please.

Rules:
- Do not forfeit
- Be respectful
- No new arguments in Round 3
- For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

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:

Con loses conduct point for forfeited round then trying to justify it with "I said what had to be said."

Con argues that "The second Amendment is actually a call for terrorist arms against the State."
If this is true, why haven't terrorists taken up arms against the State yet, even though the Second Amendment has existed for at least 200 years now?

Con argues that "when the Federal Government is ever so powerful and tyrannical that people can't even talk and expose it, it most certainly will be at a stage where it can brainwash enough people".
It's going to be extremely difficult for the government to do that since we also have the First Amendment, which protects peoples' right to free speech, and allows them to criticize the government and un-brainwash those people by giving them the real truth.

Con argues that "Every single other nation than the US that is considered a well-developed nation has been able to do this thing that the US says is impossible; take guns out of the hands of criminals."
This is an exaggeration. There are many places that "take guns out of the hands of criminals" and still have mass shootings, like the one back in March 15 2019 in New Zealand Christ Church. Not only that, but Con needs to be careful of Survivorship Bias, which is, in this case, when you focus only on places that banned guns and were successful, while ignoring the places that banned guns and were not successful in having less crime. There is more to crime than just guns alone, and Con is ignoring that.

Con argues that "Using sting operations, surveillance and much else that the US already is fully capable of (NSA is the most sophisticated spy agency and data harvesting centre on the entire planet), it would be extremely feasible for the US to rid its people of guns."
If that's true, why haven't we done that already? Why haven't we already used "sting operations, surveillance and much else" to get rid of the bad guys' guns in high-crime areas like Chicago?

Con argues that "defending against criminals who invade one's house, school or wherever, is actually not at all covered by the Second Amendment".
Yes it is. The Second Amendment refers to the "security of a free state," which means the security of a free state from people like criminals and tyrannical governors. A militia "is composed of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." http://archive.ph/eW2Z4

Finally, to answer Con's question about "How often is a 'well-regulated militia' that's fighting tyranny ever seen in the US?" It's not about how "often" we fight tyranny. It's about being able to protect ourselves in case of tyranny. It's like a vaccine. It protects you from pathogens in case you get infected in the future. The same thing goes for a well-regulated militia. We don't care about how "often" it's ever seen. We care about making sure it never happens, and making sure we have a chance to fight back.