No one needs an AR-15
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 11 votes and with 59 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
Half forfeit
RFD in comments
2/4F ⠀
50% forefeit is lazy and bad conduct overall in the debate, and therefore the arguments con and conduct con
50% forfeit
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.
Ragnar said I could.
Forfeited. Man, how do you mess up this free win as pro?
01100110 01100110
With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one.
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.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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
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.
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.
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.
You are correct.
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?