A gun does no more damage/harm than a butter knife.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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 took this swiftly with the ratio of harm in terms of actual deaths (this being from all knives, to which butter knives specifically would likely prove to be a negligible fraction). Whereas pro seems to argue butter knives hypothetical could do that if people believe in them enough...
Conduct: Con waited until the final round to add a key point about lead poisoning, at which point they could not be responded. His victory and case did not depend on this, I am making this slight penalty against their overwhelming victory mostly as a wake up call against this in future.
only con used sources.
Arguments-- Pro did not properly fulfill burden of proof. Pro also repeated arguments that con already refuted. Pro's argument of something that can kill people is equivalent to another thing that can kill people does the same damage, which CON refutes multiple times. Points to CON.
Sources-- only CON used sources.
Conduct -- ALL CAPS TEXT DOES NOT MAKE IT IMPORTANT THIS JUST MEANS YOU ARE LITERALLY SCREAMING AT THE OTHER PERSON.
Spelling -- Capitalization is only at the beginning of the sentence, not the entire sentence. Point to CON.