No one needs an ar 15
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Society doesn't benefit from the idea that you have a right to a military style semi automatic rifle here play with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2TE8lhMiFk
Society doesn't benefit from the idea that you have a right to a military style semi automatic rifle here play with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2TE8lhMiFk
In societies like Singapore and Israel and to a great extent Switzerland they have well regulated militias young men are drafted sometime young women too, they are issued military weapons and when they return to being a civilian they return the military weapon to the military, in Switzerland they may take the weapon home if it is deactivated to fire only in semi auto and then they are given only 50 bullets no sane society lets untrained unvetted yokels run around society with military grade weapons with license, it is a recipe for disaster as we see every day on tv
a military style weapon a semi automatic rifle that looks and functions like a military rifle save one factor fully automatic mode are just as dangerous as assault rifles the military uses
you can burst fire a semi automatic military style rifle just as easily as full auto if you have experience and semi automatic rifles are just as accurate more accurate than select fire weapons they use the same ammunition same power and penetration as standard military ammo and they do the same damage
R1:
Paul: says what some other countries do. Actually mentioned some good examples of responsible people having AR-15's in Switzerland. I'm assuming these are people, so the "no one" claim makes no sense. Made general claim about society not benefiting without saying why.
Nihilist: Gave good points about the military servicemen needing it to defend us. Private individuals can need it to defend themselves. Constitution defends this right.
Nihilist wins.
R2:
Paul: Says the AR-15 is dangerous. Kinda the point of a weapon......
Nihilist: Debunks claim about being able to fire semi-auto weapons like full auto. I wasn't really sure about that point because Paul's made no sense. Also refuted claim that our ammo is the same as military rounds.
For actually addressing the other side's points and being coherent, I give the round to Nihilist.
R3:
Paul: Talks about not having full-auto snipers. Doesn't seem to have an argument about not needing an AR-15.
Nihilist: Rightfully pissed by Paul ignoring his points. I share this same anger for wasting 10 minutes of my life voting and reading this.
Round: tie. Neither brought any pertinent points to the table.
Arguments: Nihilist
Sources: No empirical data could really be used in this debate. Paul used Quora and YouTube. Not reliable. Nihilist used Youtube and a site with ammo. The ammo site was used to refute a blatant lie by Pro, so sources go to Nihilist.
Spelling and Grammar: Just about had an aneurysm reading Paul's points. Nihilist was articulate. Nihilist gets these points.
Conduct: Paul wasted everyone's time by not really arguing his side. Nihilist didn't use his last round. Let's call it a tie.
I humbly submit my vote.
Better arguments:
-Pro needs to prove the resolution "No one needs an ar 15" which is a daunting task due to 2 all-encompassing terms; "No one" and "needs."
-First arguments-
--Pro states that there are 3 societies that have 'well-regulated militias" of young citizens that when their tour of duty is over they return their military-grade weapons. Pro further states that no one needs military weapons in the hands of non-military citizens.
--Con is tasked with providing the definitions in the debate since Pro did not provide them in their first argument. Con rebuts Pro's 1st argument and accurately states that all they need to do to win the debate is show "1 person is needs an Ar-15" Con points out 3 reasons why there may be a need for an ar-15, military, responsible usage, and U.S. Constitution.
-Second Arguments
--Pro argues that semiautomatic weapons are similar in function and accuracy to automatic weapons and are just as dangerous. Pro fails to rebut Con's arguments.
--Con rebuts Con's argument about the accuracy similarity between semi and fully automatic weapons. Con rightly calls Pro on their lack of rebuttal to their previous argument.
-Third Argument
--Pro concedes Con's argument that semi weapons are more accurate. Again Pro refuses to rebut Con's 1st round arguments.
--Con refuses to rebut Pro's argument and I don't blame them because Pro's argument doesn't flow with the rhythm of the debate. Con rightly finishes with the claim that Pro refuses to rebut their arguments.
Vote: Con wins.
Better sources:
-Both provided sources. Some sources were more reliable than others but nothing that takes away from the debate.
-Vote: Tie.
Better spelling and grammar
-It was obvious that Con had better S&G than Pro. But even though Pro's arguments were difficult to read at times, I felt there was nothing so bad that I could not understand the point Pro was making.
-Vote: Tie.
Better Conduct:
-Both sides conducted themselves well enough.
-Vote: Ties
Final comments:
-Con overall had a better debate.
-Constructive criticism for Pro, do better on spelling and grammar.
Convincing Arguments: CON has well-laid out logical arguments which are, for the most part, left unrefuted by PRO. The debate also had the key issue of the definition of "no-one" as defined by CON which again PRO failed to refute. PRO seemed to be arguing that military use didn't count which was not explicitly stated so, therefore, the military argument is won by CON. This is very similar for the other arguments.
Reliable Sources: CON provided sources for definitions and various points whereas PRO's sources were limited to YouTube and Wikipedia, therefore the point is awarded to CON.
Spelling & Grammar: PRO fails to use basic punctuation such as capital letters so this is also awarded to CON
Conduct: CON was discourteous in his final round, but with just cause as what he said was absolutely correct, therefore the conduct point is tied.
con's argument on the military applications of an ar-15 is a strong argument that was never refuted by pro.
pro's argument about the accuracy of semi-automatic weapons fell flat to con's rebuttals.
Pro dropped the vast majority of con's points.
Nah I just won't vote anymore.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DroneYoinker // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to TheRealNihilist
>Reason for Decision: "I give it to con because pro did not seem like they were involved in the debate at all. Pro didn't respond to anything Con said specifically, and continued to ask irrelevant questions"
>Reason for Mod Action: The RFD is not properly substantiated per the Voting Guidelines. To meet the minimum requirements, the voter must summarize the vital arguments, weigh them, and explain how/why one side wins. In addition, the s&g, conduct, and sources points are not explained either. For further information, please consult the Voting Guidelines here:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
That is not how you vote. Ask Ragnar, Ramshutu or Virtuoso by tagging them.
I don't really care about the topic. Just wanted to see want I can come up with. Even if I accept it I would have to use the military example but I think there are killer points to be made for your side as well.
I'd be happy to have this debate with you, with the motion specifically ignoring military use.
no one should have an ar 15 civilian wise
no i am not
Are you taking the position that people need an AR-15?