Instigator / Pro
32
1593
rating
9
debates
77.78%
won
Topic
#206

Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
12
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
4

After 5 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Username
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
31
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description

Usual rules:

No semantics or kritiks.

Violating is an automatic concession, And by accepting this debate you aknowledge this.

Con can choose BOP.

If there are any errors please do not vote.

Thanks

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:

meh I don't know

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:

Kiss my goddamn ass.

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:

On the Fence

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:

Sources, spelling, and conduct were all on par for both sides where each side conducted themselves professionally, each cited a wealth of information, and each had spelling good enough to understand the arguments being made. Awarding argument points, as always, was the biggest challenge, the fact that there were a multitude of different arguments being made only made this that much harder.... The debate is actually a collage of four different debates all being argued at the same time: Concealed Carry, Gun laws in general, Assault weapons, and constitutionality.

For concealed carry: Con goes off on a tangent with the police officers comparison, then tries to poke holes in Pro's sources, then tries to downplay the overall effect that concealed carry has on increased crime rates. Both sides also use the argument that correlation =/= causation, which can be applied to every argument made in the debate. Because Con spends his time on the defensive rather than use arguments in support of conceal-carry or really indicate why conceal-carry is beneficial for society overall, Pro wins this argument overall. Score is Pro 1-0 in arguments.

For Gun laws in general: Con cites England as his only example of crime going up after a gun law was put into effect, showing that crime did go up by a hefty amount after being implemented. Pro uses the correlation =/= causation argument and stresses murder rate over crime rate, but by the time Pro finally tries to tweak his arguments in the final round when Con cant respond, Con's main argument has made its point: That gun laws impact on crime had little if not the opposite effect on crime overall. Had Pro used gun laws in other countries to support his argument, that would have helped, but by focusing just on England, Con's argument triumphs. Score is tied at 1-1 for arguments.

Next is Assault Weapons, where Pro argues there is no positive use to them and that they should be banned, including info showing they are the weapon of choice for mass-shooters. Con counter argues that handguns inflict far more damage and can fit under the description of 'assault weapon' depending on how it is defined. Pro clarifies he is arguing about rifles and not handguns, and cites pretty good evidence about the effects it had on crime before and after implementation. Con responds with data showing mass shooter rates going down, but overall murder rates being largely unaffected, before making a semantical argument about knives. While the effect on murder rate for assault-weapons-bans is almost non-existent, Pro's argument about its effect on mass shootings still stands, and so he wins this argument. Score 2-1 for Pro.

The final argument is about Constitutionality, which was the worst arguments made in the debate. The vagueness of the 2nd Amendment and its application 250 years in society later makes the legality of gun control more tied to how US Courts interpret the Constitution and its scope, rather than how the two individuals in the debate interpret the Constitution, so sources cited for legality based on court rulings hold the most weight of all in this argument. Con concedes many of the supreme court arguments cited by Pro in the opening round, and instead focuses on a whirlwind of general ideas about what would happen with or without the second amendment based on the other bad arguments Pro makes about the age of the Constitution. If anything, Con seemed to concede the Constitutionality of some gun control measures and in response focused counter arguments on the overall importance of the 2nd Amendment, which wasn't the argument in the first place. The argument was whether or not the 2nd Amendment allows for gun control measures Pro argues for, not whether or not the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.

Pro wins the fourth argument in addition to the first and third, making the final count 3-1 for Pro. Therefore, Pro gets full argument points.

This was a bit of a convoluted debate, It was interesting, but would be much better if the overall scope of the debate was narrowed down to one or at most two different aspects of gun control, rather than 4

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:

Conduct to pro: cons opening argument was an argument based on semantics: while there is no hard and fast description of “assault weapons”, I felt it was clear what pro meant, and con used the specifics of the words pro used to argue he was in favour of something else: and that it applied to all guns l. Semantics are always a bad argument, but this is sufficient for a conduct mark down as it was expressly forbidden in the debate terms. While this was a borderline call, I feel it balances it with arguments, which I was also borderline and came down the other way.

Arguments: Concealed Carry laws: pro cites that where there is CCLs homicide rates increase. Con initially attacks this by saying CCW holders are safer (which wasn’t necessarily the contention) - pro attacked this position, but con the cited contrary data. Pro then tries to have it both ways by saying that cons examples where homicide rates go down are “correlation is not causation” but where they go up is not. There was a lot of stat haggling, but imo con did more than enough to negate pros point by citing other data. 1-0 Con.

Gun laws: this sections source of contention is similar to the first. Con contends that gun laws don’t work, pro suggesting they do. Firstly con appears to concede that pros contention is true, but doesn’t matter as the overall homicide rate should be considered. For me, con not put enough explanation into the relevance of that, and pro made a reasonable case as to why cons single source should not be used as an indicator. Now tied 1-1.

Assault weapons. Pros point is that there is no real useful purpose of assault weapons (I use my common understanding of the phrase), con made a series of points as to how assault weapons are not used in as many crimes or kill as many people - I found this open very weak - assault weapons here are being considered on their own merits, not in relation to hand guns viewed as a whole - I find cons comparison here fails. Cons use of DGU in this context is not relevant for this same reason. Pro points this out. Con also erodes his own point by later stating how accurate and deadly “assault weapons” can be, which tends to undermine this. Pros response basically provides an argument that while handguns kill more, assault weapons are more deadly, and supports this with data. Cons rebuttal now becomes weaker, and somewhat contradicts his other points - arguing the effectiveness of handguns and ccw makes it feel like con argues handguns are better, then rifles are better and changes which depending on the point he’s making. The crux of this, is that for me pros argument about how deadly rifles are, is the knockout point, and con doesn’t really counter it. 2:1 to pro.

Second Ammendment. Pro preempts arguments about legality by constraining the gun control he is talking about, and by pointing out various types of control that already exists. There were many points thrown around so was difficult to follow. I found that pro shot himself in the foot - by raising the argument that the Supreme Court ruled for self defence, lending credence to cons position that it should be allowed. I was less convinced about assault weapons. As I had difficulty tying back what was being contended with the debate itself, and as both pro and con made good points. I can’t fully claim to show a winner on this point. 2-1 pro.

So, as this is a mixed result, I want to further weight the result out of 5 points

So, the first ccw was a primary argument, and cons argument was excellent to muddy the waters and erode pros point. I weight this pro +5.

The second (gun laws), was not as important, and not a resounding victory. I weight this as pro +1.

The final non-draw was assault weapons. I felt pro landed the only true knockout argument in this debate here, but I don’t think the assault weapon portion was as worth as much as the arguments surrounding the effects of generalized weapon bans. I award this pro +3

While this is very hard to call, I think Con JUST gets the edge, and should be awarded arguments. I think with the Conduct points awarded, the overall scoring of giving +2 overall is a fair reflection on the debate.

Sources were excellent on both sides: and most of the really good arguments landed on both sides were supported with data.

I couldn’t find much to separate either on spelling and grammar.

I really want to say that this was one of the better debates to vote on and critique, so well done to both sides.