Instigator / Pro
4
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#2170

USA needs to tighten Gun laws

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Dr.Franklin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

I believe in RENA:

R estricted
EN ough
A lready

bump

-->
@shadow_712
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: This one is extremely tough to judge.

To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:

"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached. "

For Nikunj's first complaint, I think it is alright to say the Resolution is ambiguous. I think Nikunj may have a misunderstanding of what a resolution is. The resolution is the question that must be answered yes (PRO) or no (CON) to. There can be only one resolution, but here there is two:

a. RESOLVED: USA needs to tighten Gun laws (the one Dr. Franklin initially agreed to debate)

b. RESOLVED: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores. (The one Nikunj injected mid-debate.)

A good voter would default to the first and require Nikunj to prove that the US has a need for stricter gun laws.
Here is actually where Seldiora's vote falters. I think it unduly requires Nikunj to define what the "tightening" would be, instead of requiring him to prove that a tightening is required. This implies that the voter weighed the debate on a scale irrelevant to the debate. That said, this falls under the scope of interpretation... Something out of reach of moderation.

As for Nikunj's second complaint, it is valid. Seldiora, whether or not he meant to, makes his conclusion based on a misrepresentation of what transpired in the debate.

I will remove the vote for the second complaint. I can't remove it for the first, but I urge Seldiora to use a more fair interpretation if he wants to resubmit a vote.

"pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly what restrictions would be made in precise, seeming to mention assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed, but not entirely pushing for this position. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end, and I'm not entirely convinced by pro's half ambiguous "tighten gun laws" without true justification upon exactly what should be implemented, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply."

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

Seldiora half reads my every debate and casts a vote, I have no problem losing but it should be on merit.
Resolution by PRO: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores.
These lines were used by me in R4 , I dont know how is my resolution ambiguous as claimed by the voter. He does not even cover most of the points, main arguments regarding police, budget
". His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end," This is one more section of his vote, I quoted Department of Justice stating 931000 violent crimes takes place against only 83000 defensive gun uses.

I dont know how any of my statements invite ambiguity.

also to the voters, if you need to access my links, just copy and paste the link

May leave a vote on this one. Problem is 5 rounds is a lot to wade through. But heck, I like gun topics

-->
@vector

thank you!

Solid debate!