Instigator / Pro
4
1327
rating
62
debates
16.94%
won
Topic

A gun does no more damage/harm than a butter knife.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
0
6
Spelling and grammar points
2
3
Conduct points
2
2

With 3 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
20
1661
rating
72
debates
72.92%
won
Description
~ 922 / 5,000

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.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

only con used sources.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.