A gun does no more damage/harm than a butter knife.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I understand that folks are against guns and the rights to carry. Let me say, if we're going to ban guns, we can start rethinking many things to get rid of.
As far as I'm concern, there's always going to be a tool used to make harm.
This may not really be controversial but in case there is some one that feels they have a case, present it to refute that topic statement.
Send your questions by comment or message for clarity of anything.
CON = Intelligence_06 = PRO’s proof is insufficient
B_O_P = On PRO
- Net damage
- Gun: a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
- Butter Knife: a small knife with a rounded blade that is used especially for spreading butter on bread during a meal
- Designed efficiency
These are sources used within this argument.
But one thing you've omitted was the term "harm". I think you've carefully, precisely separated that word from the word "damage". I purposely put them side by side for this type of scenario. They're to be used interchangeably. So I'll admit or grant entry with the word "harm" here.
The keyword "efficient", has nothing to do with actually killing . Just because I can kill you faster with something versus another doesn't mean both things used fatally won't be fatal to you . You just CONCEDED this right here. You're just saying one is more efficient.
Cars weren't designed to kill but you can get killed by a hit and run driver. Something that is meant for whatever can be misused for destructive purposes.
The gun does no greater harm like death than that of a butter knife with a blade that cuts , that can slit a throat or can be inserted into the eye socket. The result is fatal.
- I shall make conclusions.
- Butter knives destruct less and kill less than guns over the course of the same time, proven by sources.
- Butter knives are less effective in killing and destroying than guns.
- Of 2 and 3, butter knives damage and harm less than guns.
- Guns did more damage and harm than butter knifes
- Guns are more efficient at doing damage and harm
- Pro did not fulfill his BoP and he moved the goalpost.
- Conclusions here.
- A gun does more damage/harm than a butter knife.
- The lead bullets contain poison whereas lead is nowhere to be found in a butter knife, so upon every single usage, the bullet harms more.
- Video proof leads to that a gun can rip through a pan whereas a butter knife cannot, so upon every single usage, the gun harms/damages more consider it can penetrate deep into the body, it is major wounds vs minor wounds by a knife.
- Guns are meant to do damage/harm whereas butter knives aren't.
- My opponent is saying that as long it kills and harms, it is the equivalent to another thing that kills and harms. That is not only moving the goalpost, but is wrong. If my parents buy me a new sportscar instead of a cheap coupe, then according to him, these two will perform the exact same due to the fact they are both cars. The logic is incorrect. One obviously does more damage than the other, and it is guns: common sense.
- A gun likely did more damage and harm than a butter knife in its lifespan due to how efficient they are at killing and the purpose they are currently being employed. My opponent offered zero evidence that a gun, in its lifetime, does no more damage and harm than a butter knife, merely false assertions.
- Guns likely did do more damage/harm than butter knives, and my opponent did not prove his BoP.
- Evidence shows that more people are killed by guns than butter knives.
- Guns did more damage/harm in this world than butter knives.
- My opponent failed to fulfill his BoP.
- Please vote Con.
Why don't you ask me anything you don't know the meaning of before accepting the debate?
I don't just offer this for you to do because it sounds nice. That's the whole point of that.
I went using your defintion(more exactly, a lack thereof). To make the case more desirable for you, please define the terms in the description. Every successful debater does that.
What is the real world data? Is it that butter knifes are not used as much as guns so they can't be used to kill anyone? The measure of harm you're using is invalid. This was explained although ignored but explained in the debate. It's just the stone cold truth.
A key weakness to your case was the phrasing of the resolution. This debate is decided on real world data. However, you seemed to want to argue that a butterknife could hypothetically do equal harm so long as the intent is the same. Which is not quite the same thing.
Bullets also contain lead which can poison the body.
Poison + cut is clearly much more harm than just a regular cut.
Richard IV once fought 10,000 Turks, while armed with only a fruit knife.
A report came in for this debate, but I am assuming it was a mis-click.
Mall is, so far, extremely brave, and I say it with no grains of salt. He will literally attempt to refute you no matter how strong yours are.