Points: 36
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind
Finished
The voting period has ended
After 7 votes the winner is ...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Points: 36
Description
No information
Round 1
Go ahead.
These are the facts about guns;
There is a positive correlation between the
number of guns in a given country and the number of gun crimes. Countries with
fewer guns have fewer incidences of gun crimes.
Having more guns does not reduce crime:
The United States is the country with the highest
number of mass shootings. America has an incredibly high violent gun crime rate
in comparison to other Western countries, and this is the result of a culture
that glorifies guns (what you would call "Pro Gun").
Gun control has been proven to be an effective policy in
other countries:
The fact is, America being a "Pro Gun" country has resulted in more death and suffering.
Round 2
I thank my opponent for accepting this argument. Now on to the rebuttals.
Con first states "There is a positive correlation between the number of guns in a given country and the number of gun crimes. Countries with fewer guns have fewer incidences of gun crimes."
This is true in most cases. However, I think it is inefficient to look at just gun crime. We should look at overall homicide rate, because people can get guns illegally, or use other weapons such as knives, and people don't have a gun to protect themselves. In places where guns were banned, murder did not decrease after the ban, but rather, in some cases, spiked up, like what happened in Britain.
"Having more guns does not reduce crime."
I imagine this revolves around the lives saved by guns. The NCVS surveys are invalid because the NCVS only asks if people have been victims of a violent crime, as opposed to other surveys that asks victims if they've been threatened with a violent crime.
"The United States is the country with the highest number of mass shootings. America has an incredibly high violent gun crime rate in comparison to other Western countries, and this is the result of a culture that glorifies guns"
As I stated before, we should look at crime before and after gun bans, because every country is different. Mass shootings can be stopped if schools aren't advertised as gun-free zones, where 98% of mass shootings happen. I aslo think arming teachers with guns would be a good idea if they are concealed-carry holders or going to become a concealed-carry holder, as this group commits crimes 16% less than police officers(scroll 2/3 down the page and you will see the stat).
"Gun control has been proven to be an effective policy in other countries:"
My opponent then sites a left-wing source in Vox. Again, I am not questioning it results in fewer gun homicides, but I look at overall homicide. I cited this in an earlier paragraph. This source seems to revolve around Australia's crime rates. I have a couple rebuttals for this. First, the homicide and crime rates where already declining before the gun ban, so it is inconclusive to say the gun ban made it go down. Secondly, this model would not be good anyway for America, because while Australia had a couple hundred thousand guns, America has over 3.5 million, so many would go into the black market.
I thank my opponent for participating in this debate. Back to you.
It is not inefficient to look at just gun crimes, I am specifically
talking about the negative consequences of too many guns in society, which is best
measured by the number of crimes committed involving guns. Fluctuations in the overall
homicide rate in various countries are a result of many factors unrelated to
guns, so it's disingenuous when people handpick data from one country to support their theory. Basically, there is no reason to believe that the rise in the homicide
rate in the UK is directly related to the ban on guns, so your conclusion
cannot be drawn.
It's just a fact that an increase in guns has not been shown to reduce crime. A definitive study from Stanford that analyzed 37 years of data concluded that states that enacted right-to-carry laws experienced upticks in violent crime. This should put to rest any idea that more guns equals less crime.
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
I don't think removing a gun-free zone sign would deter psychopathic murderers who are most likely on a suicide mission anyway.
Wait, didn't you just cite Daily Wire? You know that's not neutral right.
It's just a fact that an increase in guns has not been shown to reduce crime. A definitive study from Stanford that analyzed 37 years of data concluded that states that enacted right-to-carry laws experienced upticks in violent crime. This should put to rest any idea that more guns equals less crime.
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
I don't think removing a gun-free zone sign would deter psychopathic murderers who are most likely on a suicide mission anyway.
Wait, didn't you just cite Daily Wire? You know that's not neutral right.
Round 3
"Fluctuations in the overall homicide rate in various countries are a result of many factors unrelated to guns, so it's disingenuous when people handpick data from one country to support their theory. Basically, there is no reason to believe that the rise in the homicide rate in the UK is directly related to the ban on guns, so your conclusion cannot be drawn."
This is false. The graph I show has a tremendous spike in murder rate right after the gun ban was enacted. This spike, as the murder rate was constant before the ban, is way more than likely to be because of the ban. It eventually subsided to the same rate before the ban, showing one example where it didn't decrease murder rate.
2. This is one college study out of many. 13% rise over 10 years is an example of correlation that does not mean causation. This is about 1.4% each year. A constant rise like this could be contributed to many other factors. Another problem is that you have to pay $5 to see the study, so I do not know how valid this is.
3. "I don't think removing a gun-free zone sign would deter psychopathic murderers who are most likely on a suicide mission anyway. "
Really? Because 98% of shootings occur in gun-free zone. If the shooter wants to kill as many people as possible, he will probably go to where there are no guns, not where he could get stopped short because of a concealed-carry holder stopping him.
Gun violence in the United States is skyrocketing and you don't
think that's related to the massive number of firearms. What's so wrong about common
sense regulations like removing the Gun Show Loophole, which exempts transactions
at guns shows from all of the other federal laws. It's currently way too easy for anyone to purchase a gun. Each time
someone tries implementing some form of regulations on guns, conservatives cry
out that guns are being confiscated despite there not being a single example of
that ever happening.
Round 4
"Gun violence in the United States is skyrocketing and you don't think that's related to the massive number of firearms."
Source please?
There is no such thing as the gun show loophole. Every gun-show you are required to do background checks. Any others would be highly illegal. Again no source.
Like I said, I agree on mental health/background checks. I also think teachers should be armed. What do you suggest we do? Conservatives think that because if you ban a certain type of gun, they'll keep banning guns until there is none left, and you know it.
My opponent did not rebuttal to any of my points. This is poor conduct.
First off, do you consider writing "Source
please?" a rebuttal? I don't. And then you try to rebut me with no sources
either, why are you exempt? This is poor conduct.
Per the CDC, gun homicides are on the rise this year;
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/health/common-methods-of-homicide-cdc/index.html
I know it's "fake news", spare me.
Per the CDC, gun homicides are on the rise this year;
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/health/common-methods-of-homicide-cdc/index.html
I know it's "fake news", spare me.
You agree with mental health/background checks?, that sounds like you support gun-control. I agree with that.
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
The main point of contention here is whether rises and or drops in crime rates, correlating with increase/decrease in gun sales, equals causation. Pro's introduction of evidence showing counter correlations is sufficient to introduce doubt in Con's data. Especially given Pros' data spikes compared to Con's gradual trends. The end result is an inconclusive argument, in a debate where Con had a burden to convince Pro.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |
Reason:
Pro made no positive argumentation to support his half of the BOP, but since the debate isn't well defined, I won't weigh arguments other than to say I think con won there. I usually wouldn't give con conduct just for a forfeit, but it is at my discretion and an easier vote to explain than the arguments one, so I'll use my discretion to award con points for the forfeit
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |
Reason:
I disagree with Con about guns, but their arguments and grammar were about even, so I put it as a tie. Both debaters used slightly biased sourcing. Although Pro's source he tried to keep objective, the president of that website writes for Fox News, so there is some potential bias there. https://crimeresearch.org/about-us/. However, Con cited a university which tends to have liberal bias as well so they are even on sources.
Pro forfeit a round. This is poor conduct.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
Arguments:
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.
Sources:
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
Conduct; Tie.
Pro sadly forfeit the last round, while Con stuck it out to the end. However, Con also became very rude in round 4, so neither side deserves to win conduct.
Pro sadly forfeit the last round, while Con stuck it out to the end. However, Con also became very rude in round 4, so neither side deserves to win conduct.
Spelling & Grammar; Tie.
Roughly equal for both.
Roughly equal for both.
Sources; Pro.
Sources were most of the battle on this one and Pro definitely won that battle. Con opened with a survey and a highly biased article from the politically motivated site Vox. Pro rebutted with a source showing that the survey had a flaw, while providing several additional surveys of his own. In round 4 Con produced one last source, but just sort of randomly tossed it in with no explanation of how it supported his argument.
Sources were most of the battle on this one and Pro definitely won that battle. Con opened with a survey and a highly biased article from the politically motivated site Vox. Pro rebutted with a source showing that the survey had a flaw, while providing several additional surveys of his own. In round 4 Con produced one last source, but just sort of randomly tossed it in with no explanation of how it supported his argument.
More convincing; Pro.
The goal of the debate, however unfair it may have been, was to change Pro's mind. Con not only never got close to that objective, but Pro repeatedly called him out on his poor sources and issued rebuttals for each argument he presented. When Con attempted to claim that banning guns reduces crime, Pro not only pointed out that his survey was limited to certain types of crime, but he also offered a counter example of homicides spiking in England after guns were banned. In round 3, Con randomly claimed that gun crimes were "skyricketing" but Pro called him out on his lack of any source for that claim. Con also claimed, again with no source, that gun shows represent a loophole to purchase guns illegally, and Pro reminded him that gun shows still require background checks, so no such loophole exists. Ultimately, this debate put all of the burden on Con and his weak arguments with a lack of sources just wasn't up to the task.
The goal of the debate, however unfair it may have been, was to change Pro's mind. Con not only never got close to that objective, but Pro repeatedly called him out on his poor sources and issued rebuttals for each argument he presented. When Con attempted to claim that banning guns reduces crime, Pro not only pointed out that his survey was limited to certain types of crime, but he also offered a counter example of homicides spiking in England after guns were banned. In round 3, Con randomly claimed that gun crimes were "skyricketing" but Pro called him out on his lack of any source for that claim. Con also claimed, again with no source, that gun shows represent a loophole to purchase guns illegally, and Pro reminded him that gun shows still require background checks, so no such loophole exists. Ultimately, this debate put all of the burden on Con and his weak arguments with a lack of sources just wasn't up to the task.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
Con states that more guns does not mean less crime and that gun control does work. Con then gives sources. Pro states the exact opposite, and then gives his own sources. At the core of this debate, both sides made they're arguments, and they both gave their own statistics. This debate comes down to who's statistics were actually correct. To determine this, one must look at the sources both sides provided. Con used well-known left-wing outlets for sources, along with a college study. Pro used pro-gun sources, and a government crime report. With both sides providing biased sources, it comes down to their unbiased sources. Pro's unbiased source was the government crime report and Con's unbiased source was a Stanford University study. However, in general, a government report is more reliable than a college study. This means that Pro has better sources, and thus, a better argument.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |
| Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |
| Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
| Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |
Reason:
Good use of sources both sides. However after writing my vote, I’m giving sources to con. Both his sources fully demonstrated cons point, and were not just individual data points, but covered most of his position in detail. Pro didn’t read these sources, and attacked a straw man of what he thought they said: which effectively gave Con the win on arguments. The Stanford example was similar. The sources here fully underpinned cons entire argument, and I felt they were incredibly effective. Whilst pro backed up individual small claims - nothing he cited was as broad or as solid in underpinned his argument as these from con. And as such sources gave cons initial argument a rock solid foundation that was almost unassailable - whereas pros did not.
Pro forfeited a round, which warrants a loss of conduct. Conduct deteriorated in the last post - instigated by pro - but I would warn both sides about such snarky behavior.
Arguments (in no particular order)
In general con talks about gun crime, gun crime stats, etc, pro throughout attempts to shift the argument to talking about crime in general. He mentions knives and illegally acquired firearms, but makes no real attempt to show they are translatable. IE, everyone commiting a crime with a gun today, would commit one with a knife or illegal gun tomorrow. Leaving that part unargued makes the shift to crime in general invalid.
1.) Con argues that crime doesn’t decrease with more guns. Pro dismisses this as a flawed NCVS study, but looking at cons source, this doesn’t seem to be the case: thus pros argument here is invalid, con goes on to site another study (his original link had multiple cited studies) which was dismissed as only a single study, which is a very poor rebuttal. 1-0 Con.
2.) Con argues that mass shootings occur because of the glorification of guns, and the volume of guns in the US, this seems reasonable on its face. Pro shifts again to crime in general and doesn’t offer a clear rebuttal of this position. He then appears to blame gun free zones - without offering a causal reason or argument to support this position, and offers solution. As a result pros response was more a deflection than a rebuttal and leaves cons original argument unrefuted. 2-0 Con.
3.) Con argues (with a source) that gun control actually works, citing a vox article (which itself cites research), that gun control actually works. Pro dismisses this as mostly Australia, and mostly revolving around crime rates which were already falling - but that isn’t what the source is talking about - the source cites multiple countries law changes before and after various controls were enacted. As a result, pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con. 3-0 Con.
These were the three main arguments raised, though there were a couple of main offshoots (and a deteriorating debate) which were ancillary at best, given the issues above. I will note: that pro argued pros claims were “correlation is not causation” then inferred correlation is causation in his next point, he also pointed out that a single study is not proof, after citing a single example is proof in the post before. After the second set of responses the debate was really poor on both sides, but didn’t factor in to my weighting as the opening arguments were strong and unrefuted. Both sides could have done better.
"source please" as disrespectful?? LMAO
He put no source to his "skyrocketing" claim so I couldn't confirm it was valid. I even added "please". Cmon. You have more common sense than that.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/206
>Reported Vote: Block // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for decision:The topic I am pro gun: Change my mind is a difficult one to argue. It seems like both sides were arguing whether gun ownership was more of a benefit to American society than a negative, that is what i am basing my decision on. I give my vote to Our_Boat_is_Right because because he took an over all approach to guns and therefore seemed to make the more convincing argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision.
************************************************************************
>Reported Vote: reukinche // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
Spelling and grammar: I didn't see any mistakes which reduced readability.
Sources: Con used one or two arguably partisan sources (CNN and Vox), but all of Pro's sources were partisan.
Arguments: While Pro's arguments had some flaws, some of which Con pointed out, Con's arguments hinged on partisan sources.
Conduct: Pro forfeited first, and Con forfeited in response. However, conduct on both sides could have been better.
************************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Removed
Arguments:
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.
Conduct:
Pro has very obviously not read some of Con's sources. More than that, he's constructed and argued against his own narrative based upon what he imagines the sources to be about. This is dishonest
Sources:
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.
************************************************************************