Instigator / Pro
Points: 18

No one needs an AR-15

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 11 votes the winner is ...
dustryder
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 77
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
Round 1
Published:
Waived, as per rules of this debate
Published:
Definition: well-being,
the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.

1. Murderous motivation

There are many speculations as to the motivations of mass shooters. One in particular is the fame and infamy aspect.

I think that yeah, some of these perps are motivated by fame. We don’t have a number. We really don’t. We have to be honest. We don’t have a number. But I think definitely that some of them do it for the fame. For the attention. And you know, lots of people go through life never getting any attention at all. People aren’t paying attention to them in any way. And they feel they’re a nobody. They’re a nothing. And then they see this event happen – some heinous event – and another person, sort of like them, they think, suddenly is being talked about all over the world. And that has a twisted appeal for some people. [1]
This profiling of mass shooters who are motivated by fame indicates several things. They are obviously not happy, because they are likely not receiving any attention. Nor are they comfortable for the same reason. The conclusion can only be that receiving attention is likely to improve their psychological well-being. In this case, this attention is the fame and infamy received from committing a mass shooting.

.
2. The AR-15 and mass shootings

The AR-15 has been the primary firearm of choice in several mass shootings. This includes the Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Stoneman Douglas High School, and Port Arthur shootings. If indeed it is true that the act of committing mass shootings promotes their personal psychological well-being and that the scale of those mass shootings could've only occurred with that particular gun that they possessed at the time, it can only be concluded that the AR-15 used at the time has been needed and the events have shown that the AR-15 will continue to be needed in the future by aspiring mass shooters.

Round 2
Published:
Thanks, dustryder, for debating!

Let's start off with reviewing your definition of well-being

Definition: well-being,
the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.
I agree with your definition (not initially, but I found it to be correct after research).

And now, to your points.

1. Murderous motivation

There are many speculations as to the motivations of mass shooters. One in particular is the fame and infamy aspect.
First of all, as you said, this is speculation. Secondly, there is no evidence given supporting this speculation. Here is a quote from your source:

I think that yeah, some of these perps are motivated by fame. We don’t have a number. We really don’t. We have to be honest. We don’t have a number. But I think definitely that some of them do it for the fame. For the attention. And you know, lots of people go through life never getting any attention at all. People aren’t paying attention to them in any way. And they feel they’re a nobody. They’re a nothing. And then they see this event happen – some heinous event – and another person, sort of like them, they think, suddenly is being talked about all over the world. And that has a twisted appeal for some people.
I take great note that, while the source is reliable, this is clearly an opinion. The speaker makes this very clear by saying "I think." He goes on to say, "We don't have a number," which means the number could, in theory, be 0. You have failed to prove that anyone does this for fame.

As a sidenote, fame and infamy do not necessarily cause comfort, happiness, or healthiness.

This profiling of mass shooters who are motivated by fame indicates several things. They are obviously not happy, because they are likely not receiving any attention. Nor are they comfortable for the same reason. The conclusion can only be that receiving attention is likely to improve their psychological well-being. In this case, this attention is the fame and infamy received from committing a mass shooting.
Assuming there are mass shooters that are in it for fame/infamy in order to get attention (which there might not), mass shooting does not need to be the way in which the shooter obtains attention. Their need is attention, where it comes from does not define the need.
.
2. The AR-15 and mass shootings

The AR-15 has been the primary firearm of choice in several mass shootings. This includes the Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Stoneman Douglas High School, and Port Arthur shootings. If indeed it is true that the act of committing mass shootings promotes their personal psychological well-being and that the scale of those mass shootings could've only occurred with that particular gun that they possessed at the time, it can only be concluded that the AR-15 used at the time has been needed and the events have shown that the AR-15 will continue to be needed in the future by aspiring mass shooters.
While I do not dispute the fact that the AR-15 was very often used in mass shootings, it can not be concluded that the AR-15 is needed. Other guns would actually be more efficient. The AR-15 is not fully automatic, nor does it cause massive explosions. Grenade launchers, bombs, and fully automatic weapons would be far more efficient in killing large numbers of people quickly. The AR-15 was not, is not, and never will be a need.

Published:

1. Murderous motivation


First of all, as you said, this is speculation. Secondly, there is no evidence given supporting this speculation.


I take great note that, while the source is reliable, this is clearly an opinion. The speaker makes this very clear by saying "I think." He goes on to say, "We don't have a number," which means the number could, in theory, be 0. You have failed to prove that anyone does this for fame.
Please see further evidence below

"In this context, some rampage shooters succumb to “delusions of grandeur” and seek fame and glory through killing."[1]
"Researchers have also found that shooters are attracted to media’s ability to easily facilitate fame."[2]


As a sidenote, fame and infamy do not necessarily cause comfort, happiness, or healthiness.
The receiving of fame and infamy is the completion of a goal. Completing goals is linked to the releasing of dopamine which is a hormone released by the brain to induce happiness. [3][4] Hence it is quite clear that receiving fame and infamy in this context will literally cause happiness.



Assuming there are mass shooters that are in it for fame/infamy in order to get attention (which there might not), mass shooting does not need to be the way in which the shooter obtains attention. Their need is attention, where it comes from does not define the need.
If the needs of a mass shooter could be trivially met by receiving attention from any source, I propose that they would not have gone the route in which their future is extinguished and their hands are stained with a reprehensible act of humanity. It is logically sound that given two solutions that both produce the desired outcomes, that the outcome with the least impactful side-effects be the one chosen for. Additionally, the previous testimony is quite clear that it is the global infamy that garners the appeal, a requirement that only large shooting events can readily fill.


2. The AR-15 and mass shootings

While I do not dispute the fact that the AR-15 was very often used in mass shootings, it can not be concluded that the AR-15 is needed. Other guns would actually be more efficient. The AR-15 is not fully automatic, nor does it cause massive explosions. Grenade launchers, bombs, and fully automatic weapons would be far more efficient in killing large numbers of people quickly. The AR-15 was not, is not, and never will be a need.
The examples I have given before have demonstrated a need simply because in some of those cases, either the AR-15 was the only gun used, or the only gun available to inflict a mass number of causalities. These are explicit examples of at least one person only able to use an AR-15 to maximise desired outcome in any given scenario. While Pro makes the argument that other armaments could've been more useful or equivalent in use for the given situations, it is clear that such armaments were not used in these given scenarios and only the gun used and available at the time (the AR-15) would've sufficed, hence indicating need.


Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Extend
Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Waive
Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#11
Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#10
Added:
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
#9
Added:
--> @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.
#8
Added:
Shame - this could've been interesting.
#7
Added:
@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.
#6
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @OoDart, @dustryder
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.
#4
Added:
This debate is the epitome of a gotcha argument.
#3
Added:
--> @DroneYoinker
You are correct.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @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?
#1
#11
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Half forfeit
#10
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
2/4F ⠀
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50% forefeit is lazy and bad conduct overall in the debate, and therefore the arguments con and conduct con
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50% forfeit
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Too much of Con's case wound up being dropped as a result of the poor conduct on Pro. The poor conduct came from Pro's several forfeitures. So conduct and arguments to Con.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Ragnar said I could.
#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:
Forfeited. Man, how do you mess up this free win as pro?
#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:
01100110 01100110
#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:
With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one.
#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:
If not for the forfeits, I would still vote con.
Pro never made a positive case, and he had took what he likely presumed to be an easy victory case (even insisting con waive the last round so that pro can have the final say... I'd be more supportive of this type of thing). I used the remaining area of discussion to what that some people (even if they shouldn't get their needs met) indeed have a need for the tool the media has propped up as the ideal in mass shootings. The counter that other weapons could have done even more damage, does not refute the evidence of the cases of the AR-15 being how the needs were met.
Pro of course could have argued those killers don't qualify as humans, or a host of other arguments, but he did not. The only case under consideration is the counter case.
Sources go to con for a well researched case. Pro tried to challenge one of the sources, but it fell flat and lacked the follow up. Con's one on the gain of accomplishing your goals was of particular value to his case, proving that well being is improved for those in question. Comparatively, pro had no sources.