Instigator / Pro
18
1518
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#1610

No one needs an AR-15

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
33
Better sources
8
22
Better legibility
6
11
Better conduct
1
11

After 11 votes and with 59 points ahead, the winner is...

dustryder
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
77
1535
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description

This is the full description of the debate! It is highly important that you read this. If you do not read this, you might regret it later if you accept this debate.

PRO = No one needs an AR-15.
CON = At least one person needs an AR-15.

The Burden of Proof is on con, of course pro can provide arguments as pro sees fit.

Pro is not arguing that no one should be allowed to have an AR-15, simply that no one needs an AR-15.

Definitions:
No one = No person
Person = A human being
Need = a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
AR-15 = ArmaLite Rifle 15

Rules:
1. The above definitions are not to be disputed, unless agreed upon pre-debate in comments
2. Pro will waive first round, and con will waive R4.
3. Pro cannot provide rebuttals during R2, because con cannot provide rebuttals during R1.
4. Pro cannot provide new arguments in R4, and con cannot provide new arguments during R3.
5. Be respectful
6. No forfeits
7. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
8. Violation of these rules should result in full points being awarded to the rulebreaker's opponent

-->
@PressF4Respect

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con

>Reason for Decision: "50% forfeit"

>Reason for Mod Action: Because half of the rounds are forfeited and the balance of points favor the side that did not concede, this vote meets the minimum standards under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Con

>Reason for Decision: "With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one."

>Reason for Mod Action: Because half of the rounds are forfeited and the balance of points favor the side that did not concede, this vote meets the minimum standards under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************

Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: Per PRO's own rules:

3. Pro cannot provide rebuttals during R2, because con cannot provide rebuttals during R1.
PRO's R2 was mostly rebuttal.

6. No forfeits
PRO forfeited last two rounds

8. Violation of these rules should result in full points being awarded to the rulebreaker's opponent
Full points to rulebreaker's opponent, as requested by PRO

-->
@OoDart

For future reference, this is a great reason not to take two debates at once. Unless that isn't the reason you're forfeiting. No hostility or anything, just a recommendation.

Shame - this could've been interesting.

@Voters,
Something to note is that pro did make an argument in R2. That the rules specified he waive R1, transposed this to the first round for him, thus effectively (even if not technically) under the umbrella of full forfeit. On such a case points don't need to be justified, but there's no reason to imply his S&G were atrocious.

-->
@Christen

I didn't mean that all mass shooters do so for fame. Just that research has indicated that some do. I guess the only explanation can be that while you're analysing their actions from a rational point of view, mass shooters are inherently irrational.

-->
@dustryder
@OoDart

I don't agree that people commit these murders for fame. Most people, even criminals/gangsters, are smart enough not to trade away their lives/freedom for just a couple hours of fame. You're much better off trying to be famous by doing good things and following the law.

Fame is useless if you're not alive to enjoy any of it, and most people understand this. When all those african american negro people shoot each other up in Chicago, it's not for fame. It's for drugs, money, girls, sex, territory, or to just show the others who's boss or whatever.

I think these people shoot up schools because of things like drug abuse, mental abuse, and bullying. If you read some of the manifestos of shooters like Brenton Tarrant and Patrick Crusius, you'll see that they carry out attacks because of things that have nothing to do with getting famous.

This debate is the epitome of a gotcha argument.

-->
@DroneYoinker

You are correct.

-->
@OoDart

Sorry, just for clarification.

You are not arguing that AR-15's need to be banned, but rather that people who say "Citizens NEED AR-15's" are incorrect?