Instigator / Pro
Points: 10

No one needs an ar 15

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 28
Description
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
Round 1
Published:
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
Published:
Let me lay out what the debate is about because my opponent didn't do so.

No one = No human.

Need = a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism

Ar 15 = lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the ArmaLite AR-15 design.

Just to make it simple. The title states no one needs an Ar-15. All I have to do is demonstrate 1 person is needs an Ar-15 to fulfill my burden of proof.

Military
P1: A country should be able to defend themselves
P2: Using weapons is one way of doing so
Conclusion: The Ar-15 should be accessible to the military

I don't think I need to expand on this so my opponent can rebut my premises. 

Responsible usage
P1: People who are no threat should be free to do what they like
P2: This can be responsibly using lethal weapons
Conclusion: The Ar-15 should be accessible to citizens

Also pretty simple.

Constitution
P1: The US abides by the constitution
P2: The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to use firearms
Conclusion: People who need an Ar-15 are allowed to use it in the US

Very simple as well.

Given how short my arguments are, I will be rebutting the claims brought forward.

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
From this I can gather society shouldn't have weapons. The link is to a weapon review. Nothing I found demonstrate this claim and since this was in the description of the debate not in my opponent's argument I think I am okay to simply not even bother arguing against it. My second reason would be that my opponent didn't explain why it wasn't a benefit which is a problem in understanding what Pro means and me to even make an rebuttal given there really isn't too much there.
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
1) Not making an argument against no one having guns instead making an argument against untrained individuals.
2) Supporting the claim that retired vets should have weapons thus going against the Pro stance you have which is "no one needs an ar 15"

I haven't found a single argument in favor of their side so I am left with well pointing out problems not rebutting the argument brought forward because there was none about the debate at hand. 

Over to you PaulVerliane

Round 2
Published:
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 they need to be banned or heavily restricted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms#2019_ban
Published:
Thanks PaulVerliane for replying.

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
Padding to the burden that I don't think Pro has fulfilled.
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
You stated that semi auto rifles are as accurate as fully auto rifles but that is not true. You haven't given information regarding this but I will. A semi auto rifle is a tool when you pull the trigger once and a single bullet will be fired. No matter if you hold it down no more bullets will be fired until you pull the trigger again. A fully auto rifle is capable of shooting until there is no more rounds left. Given weapons are powerful and we are talking about a fully automatic rifle it would be difficult unless you are properly trained to shoot accurately. Here is a video of an experienced person not being able to completely control the fully auto feature of the weapon. 

Not all guns use the same ammunition. Here is a list of various ammo types.

I remember playing MW2 and the game told me FMJ gives the weapon a higher penetration. MW2 is more real than what you are saying. 

Just to make sure everyone understands, not one claim of mine was challenged. I await a rebuttal at this point.


Over to you PaulVerliane
Round 3
Published:
have you ever heard of one fully automatic sniper rifle? i would suppose the list is either very small or non existent, okay? so yes semi automatic rifles are more accurate than if you shoot an assault rifle on full auto or three round burst  https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-fully-automatic-sniper-rifles
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-sniper-rifles-fully-automatic fully automatic rifles are made with the understanding they will put down supressing fire bolt or semi are made to be accurate,  if you want i can cut and paste experts sayn that but i get grief when i cut and paste so eithe read the link or expect some cut and paste proof i do have it


a civilian semi automatic rifle not only looks like  a military standard issue it take the same sort of ammunition  "the point is to use CAUTION when firing NATO spec ammo in civilian weapons, "but it can be done very easily its in no way impossible  " High pressure and possible mechanical failure of the action is possible due to high pressures of the military ammo. But the civilian spec ammo can be shot in military actions, at a slight velocity loss due to the relatively long free bore of the military weapons. Numerous manufacturers of the AR-15 offer their guns in civilian chambering using SAAMI not NATO specs. Be careful. Remember that the military ammo produces similar pressures to the civilian loads, but this is despite the free bore. They are hotter in a civilian chamber spec." http://www.shootingrangeindustries.com/nato-military-cartridge-ammunition-vs-civilian-ammo-measuring-free-bore-pressure-more/
Published:
I am not going to argue against what you said last. This entire debate you haven't rebutted a single claim of mine while what I think is not sufficiently fulfilling your burden of proof. I don't see the point in spending my time arguing against your points when you don't argue against mine. 
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Nah I just won't vote anymore.
#8
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************
#7
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
That is not how you vote. Ask Ragnar, Ramshutu or Virtuoso by tagging them.
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @PoliceSheep
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.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I'd be happy to have this debate with you, with the motion specifically ignoring military use.
#4
Added:
no one should have an ar 15 civilian wise
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
no i am not
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Are you taking the position that people need an AR-15?
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.