Instigator / Pro
36
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#208

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
12
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
7
7
Better conduct
4
7

After 7 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
36
1450
rating
10
debates
30.0%
won
Description

No information

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:

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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

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.

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; 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.

Spelling & Grammar; Tie.
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.

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.

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:

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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.