Instigator / Pro
0
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
Topic
#1602

The right to stay alive is more important than the right to own a gun

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...

Patmos
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1588
rating
23
debates
67.39%
won
Description

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8zvdWF-9s public safety is more important than a dubious hobby https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8zvdWF-9s

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

Pro lacks his own case, so plagiarizes. This issue is compounded by him repeatedly being told how to properly present things in a non-plagiarized form. The issue is bad enough that he can't even think of defense when a source is challenged, as con does.

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

Conduct to Con-Pro copies his sources verbatim with no quotation marks repeatedly, this is poor conduct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments:For R1 Pro merely points to the danger of guns without tying that into the resolution at all. Con states that the methodology of Pro's source is faulty, and cites a source which observes the whole of the US which shows guns are useful at protecting citizens. Con ties this into the resolution by effectively stating, that the right to own a gun protects the right to stay alive. Pro largely just restates his R1 in R2, using the same study that was rebutted by Pro.

In short, Pro relied on 1 study that showed guns were doing more harm then good to prove his point, when a more respectable study was proposed that showed that guns were good for protecting citizens, Pro never touches this. Con largely stated that the right to own a gun protects your right to life, which also goes untouched. In order for Pro to win he must prove that the right to life is more important than the right to own a gun, he merely attempts to do this by citing a study that Pro debunked and with his counter evidence proved guns were useful for protecting people. Pro doesn't prove what he needed to in order to win the debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Arguments ✗ ✗ ✔
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✗ ✔