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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Half forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

2/4F ⠀

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

50% forefeit is lazy and bad conduct overall in the debate, and therefore the arguments con and conduct con

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

50% forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Ragnar said I could.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeited. Man, how do you mess up this free win as pro?

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

01100110 01100110

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.