Instigator / Pro
0
1523
rating
9
debates
61.11%
won
Topic

All people should have the right to own guns.

Status
Finished

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

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1676
rating
44
debates
79.55%
won
Description
~ 868 / 5,000

To whoever joins this debate, best of luck. If the Con wants to try and either message me questions or comment questions for me, I will do my best to answer them, but I'm not making a guarantee due to my schedule. Lastly, before we start the debate, to structure the debate, I use a system like this
1. Main point.
A. Impacts to show what happens if we don't solve the main point.
B. Another impact if present.
I. Roman numerals to show sub impacts if applicable.
This little bit is a copy and paste, so all these points might not be in every debate I'm in.

On the topic itself, I as Pro am going to add framing, but that's all debatable so I'm not going to put it in the description. I want as little as possible holding Con back from doing what they feel is a good strategy to win the debate, so do your best. Only rule I would say is no new args in the last round.

Round 1
Pro
Framing - These are just points to help give the round some structure, But these are obviously debatable if Con doesn't agree with my points.
1. The word right shall be defined as "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled" as defined by Merriam Webster. The reason this definition is key is because of the phrase "justly entitled". This is key because that allows Pro to say that criminals and those found dangerous through due process don't have access to guns because they aren't justly entitled.
2. Guns isn't a go pass for all types of guns. As long as the weaponry claimed can give access to the points of Pro, Then that is sufficient. I don't have to defend giving access to nuclear weapons to every person because that creates to much Con ground.

My points
1. Allowing ownership of guns is key to combating authoritarianism. If the masses have access to weaponry, Then it creates a line of defense that the state has to feel threatened by. This is key to shutting down authoritarianism because the state will never be able to oppress the people without armed protests and riots fighting back, And if that doesn't worked, Civil war. Being able to check authoritarianism is key to solving multiple impacts.
A. Firstly, Authoritarianism leads to genocide. While genocide is usually perceived as ethnic or religious groups, Authoritarianism usually leads to political genocide. Political genocide is especially bad because it kills all chances at questioning the state. For example, You can't question the alleged Uighur genocide in China, But you can question the alleged immigrant genocide in the United States since we don't partake in political genocide like China does. (I use the term alleged not as an act of condoning, But as an act of not trying to go down the rabbit hole with my examples instead of the actual issue at hand. )
B. Secondly, Authoritarianism leads to conflict. Democracies rarely go into conflict with each other because it is a lot harder to reach the political burden of conflict for a democracy. Some of these reasons are lack of popularity of war, Economic ties with other democracies, And diplomatic options like UN mediation and sanctions usually solving first. Authoritarian nations ignore all of this and make conflict much more likely. Conflict should always be avoided, And if we checking authoritarianism can lead to less warfare, Then this should be strived for.

2. Gun rights are key lowering crime rates. This one might seem counter-intuitive, But stay with me. Guns owned by law-abiding citizens will be able to be used to protect one's person and property from unwanted action from individuals, But without this access they are at the mercy of gun-owning criminals. See, A criminal will gain illegal access to a firearm if they are already willing to commit crimes in general. This is key to preventing a ton of crime based impacts, But the one I'm going to focus on for the sake of the round is rapes and sexual assaults. Physically, An unarmed individual might find it quite hard to repel attacks from an armed aggressor. These attacks, Especially when of the sexual nature, Can lead to lasting psychological damage that can result in depression, Paranoia, And suicide. This is truly awful, And the only fact that makes it worse is how easy it would be to prevent it.

3. My final point is the necessity of guns for rural areas. By granting access to weapons to all people, We grant access to rural areas. Without granting access to firearms, We will see a multitude of impacts.
A. Agriculture production is protected by firearms. Hogs cause $1. 5 billion a year in agricultural and environmental damage in the United States according to Mississippi State University. This amount would only go up if rural areas had no access to firearms and would only go down by giving access to more firearms to people who are currently barred from access. This damage causes economic and food supply issues.
I. The economic damage would ripple out because food prices would rise which gives consumers less money to put into other sectors of the economy. Upon receiving less money in other sectors, These sectors would have to let go employees, Which results in less money being spent which creates a negative spiral, Eventually leading to recession or depression.
II. The second issue is that higher food prices simply bar access for the impoverished to gain access to food which results in mass hunger for citizens. Hunger is uniquely evil in the fact that it is a slow gnawing pain in the stomachs of people who eventually die from it, Or sit in the pain gaining just enough to survive but just less of what's need to feel satiated. The worst part of hunger is that the pain stops you from having the full faculties needed to always be able to pull yourself out of hunger if there is a way out, Making it like a trap.
B. Some areas that don't have agricultural industries but still are rural areas (think of the Alaskan wilderness for an example) utilize firearms as a way to be able to feed themselves. This is necessary for Native tribes and other frontier persons to be able to avoid hunger. Extend across my previous point about how hunger is uniquely evil.
C. Rural areas don't always have immediate access to animal control systems that are able to help when wild animals in rural areas attack. Bears, Mountain lions, Snakes, Etc. All exist and pose a serious hazard to humans in rural areas. Without access to firearms to defend themselves, Rural citizens are at the mercy of nature which leads to thousands of preventable deaths a year.

Con
Structure
Per the suggestion of MisterChris, I shall draft my arguments in a Google Docs. This was created before Ancap460 entered his(or her, or their) first argument. I will ignore my opponent’s case, no rebuttals whatsoever, because I think my point is strong enough to stand on its own.

My structure is as follows.
  1. The resolution ensures that newborns should have the right to own guns since they are humans
  2. Newborns should not have the right own guns
  3. Thus, not all people should have the right to have guns.

Pro obviously bears the BoP, and he needs to justify all kinds of people for using guns, especially newborns, murderers, as well as other people that are generally not suited for owning guns. Sane, law-abiding adults should be able to use guns, but this is not what the resolution is asking. The resolution asks for Pro proving ALL cases of humans being able to use guns, which is basically an impossible task to fit into even 40,000 characters in total(No new arguments in R5) since there are over 7 billion people on this planet, including all sorts of individuals. Pro has set himself up for a resolution too difficult to prove.

This is not DDO, and structures should be put in the description section, and if he agrees to literally move the goalpost right when the game started, alright then, it would be expected that it is unexpected by Con, which would mean it is a fallacy and Con is not obligated to follow anything outside the description sections, because this is equivalent of saying “Hey, Also I have to tell you that the price of the water has to be over 500,000$!” when your friend just said “deal” to buying you a bottle of water, which is basically unfair. Any restrictions Pro puts in his R1 argument, whatever it might be, is not expected to be obeyed.

The first contention is a truism and the third one is a conclusion. The only one needing proof is the second one.

Contention: Newborns should not be able to own guns

Newborns cannot comprehend what a “gun” is. We know that the nature of “guns” is dangerous, since “guns” should include all guns, including cannons[1] and rocket-propelled-grenade launchers[2]. Obviously letting a newborn use a cannon is not a good idea at all.

Obviously I am pulling a Ragnar and a Half into this debate, but just for the sake of it, Firearms should not even be USED NEAR babies, let alone for them having it[3]

Newborns have bad vision, primitive thinking, as well as sensitive hearing[4]. Using a gun as a baby could lead to multitudes of harming, as well as harm to the baby itself, by itself, because the baby doesn’t even know where you should shoot a gun.

Since Contention 1 is true, and contention 2 is proven, this would mean the conclusion would be true: Not all people should have the right to own guns. Newborns are people and they should not have the right to own guns, and it is disproven of Pro’s contention: Vote CON!

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7
[3]https://thewellarmedwoman.com/about-guns/guns-babies-part-3-pregnancy/
[4]https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/sensenewborn.html

Round 2
Pro
I'm going to answer my opponent's contentions and extend my own.

Framework
1. The only argument against the framework was this general theory how its existence was bad, but this isn't actual arguments against the points themselves, so extend them across as ceded for Pro. The theory about them being bad will be answered as one of my opponent's points.

Opponent's Points
1. The vague theory that I shouldn't be allowed to frame the debate in the beginning at all is inherently broken, and I'm going to directly answer his warrant and provide warrants against it.
A. His first and only warrant is that there is a description and all the rules should be set up within that description, but if we actually read the description itself, I quote "On the topic itself, I as Pro am going to add framing, but that's all debatable so I'm not going to put it in the description. I want as little as possible holding Con back from doing what they feel is a good strategy to win the debate, so do your best." The argument that the description needs to be set all frameworks is hinged on the idea that the description didn't have some sort of framing for my opponent to understand going into it. Just because he refused to engage with my framework doesn't mean the framework is bad or unfair.
B. Now, how the framing is done within the first speech is better for the debate space because it allows the framework to be debated as another element of the debate. See, if we can debate the framing, then it gives us an ability to improve our ability to debate on these meta-debate topics, such as "Is this a good definition of a word in the topic?" and "Is this a fair restraint on the topic to give both sides a fair shot at winning?" I set up two restrictions that I thought would create enough ground that both Pro and Con would have a fair chance at winning the debate as skilled debaters. Since the speech skills is one of the only two actual impacts of a debate (I'll get into the other one next) since we don't have any power to actually affect the world through our advocacies, so my adding another element to the debate space, we have nothing to gain but fairness. The argument that it isn't fair to have the framework as a whole doesn't apply if Con doesn't try to engage with it at all.
C. The last reason that the framework is especially key is because of the second true impact that comes from debate, which is topic education. The only thing I gain from doing this online, besides practicing my persuasion skills, is learning about gun rights. Now, why the framework is especially key to a better understanding of this is because both parts of the framework gives a true understanding of how this topic would accurately apply, and not the strawman my opponent wants to attack. The first point utilizes a dictionary definition and a blatant truthism about how rights work, which is that not everyone has full access to every right. The second point is simply saying that the right wouldn't cover all weapons, but only weapons that could practically be expected. The right of free speech is usually limited by threats, hate speech, and anything that could cause panic in many countries that guarantee it. The right to vote is limited by mental capacity, age, and felony status in many countries that guarantee it. To say that we should have a debate about the right to own guns with no such limits would inherently be saying that we don't want to have an educational conversation about how rights would apply in the real-world. The framework is key to having an educational conversation.

2. On his point about newborn babies, I would say the issue solves itself, because even if you ignored the entirety of the framework that describes why I don't have to defend newborns owning arms, I think it solves itself for two reasons.
A. A newborn does not have the means to purchase a weapon. They don't have money to purchase a gun, the ability to fill out any sort of paperwork needed from a governmental or corporate entity, the ability to go get the gun from a company, or the ability to convince a gun salesman to sell to them. Without some warrant besides "it's possible", this argument is just an unwarranted issue used to distract from the actual issues brought up by the aff.
B. A newborn does not have the means to use a weapon. Newborns can hold on to a toy for a few moments only (1) and don't have the full ability to pick up a gun that would weigh much more than an infants toy. Very simply, if a baby was able to get past the very large barrier of acquiring a gun, they would then have to get past the physically impossible barrier of them using a gun. Once again, "it's possible" isn't a justifiable argument without giving us the actual story of how it happens.

3. My opponent brought up the use of cannons and RPGs, and while this once again links into the framework argument, if you don't buy that, this wouldn't be included in the definition. Firstly, I'll define gun since my opponent failed to do so. According to Merriam Webster, gun shall be defined as "a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun)". This definition clearly labels rifles and handguns as what is a gun, but even if you don't buy that, do a reasonability check. Based on the cultural definition that we have of gun, what would it be fair to interpret. My opponent is trying to justify using every absurd definition of the word because he knows that having a real-world, reasonable conversation would be impossible for him to win.

4. As a kind of general point in response to all of my opponent's arguments, if we took all the bad things I bring up (I'll extend them in detail when I extend my case) and all the bad things my opponent brought up (which I've already proved isn't relevant), then it would still lead to a better world in which we have gun rights.

My points

1. My opponent dropped my point about combating authoritarianism and how guns are needed to check authoritarian governments from committing genocides and launching wars against each other, so flow that as ceded for Pro.

2. My opponent dropped my point about stopping crime and the psychological damage caused by rape and sexual assault, so flow that as ceded for Pro.

3. My opponent dropped my point about rural areas and the economic damage, famine and the uniqueness of hunger as an issue, and animal attacks, so flow that as ceded for pro.
Con
Organized Rebuttal I: I can indeed make my point stand no matter what

So, hmm, what is my opponent's framework? I protest not the framework because that doesn't hinder anything at all for me. I will state his "framework" just below. Keep in mind, I accept Pro having frameworks in R1, but any more, it is moving the goalpost. Saying "I will put the goalpost once the game starts" is okay, but just freely moving it and even abolishing it in the middle of the game is not.
    • The word right shall be defined as "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled" as defined by Merriam Webster. The reason this definition is key is because of the phrase "justly entitled". This is key because that allows Pro to say that criminals and those found dangerous through the due process don't have access to guns because they aren't justly entitled.
    • Guns aren't a go pass for all types of guns. As long as the weaponry claimed can give access to the points of Pro, Then that is sufficient. I don't have to defend giving access to nuclear weapons to every person because that creates to much Con ground.
    So, using succinct claims, it is basically:
    • "Gun rights" are the powers and/or privileges in which the ownership of a firearm is justified and entitled
    • Only light, portable guns such as handguns count
    Now, I fully accept the first one from the very start. I can also accept the second one, dropping the whole "cannons" point. Very poor choice for Pro to not include the groups of people in the scope of "All people", as Pro just kinda conceded that babies should not have the ownership of a gun.

    Note that there are portable rocket launchers[1], not far from what cannons are. Pro's scope never excluded babies, so my case is the same: Pro must justify that Babies should be able to own rocket launchers. I mean---it is both dangerous to let a baby grasp hold of a hand pistol or a rocket launcher, but yeah, the case is what the case is, and babies should not own guns. My opponent's response to that? Let's see.

    Organized Rebuttal II: Cannot own?

    So, hmm what is my opponent's response to that?
      • A newborn does not have the means to purchase a weapon. They don't have money to purchase a gun, the ability to fill out any sort of paperwork needed from a governmental or corporate entity, the ability to go get the gun from a company, or the ability to convince a gun salesman to sell to them. Without some warrant besides "it's possible", this argument is just an unwarranted issue used to distract from the actual issues brought up by the aff.
      • A newborn does not have the means to use a weapon. Newborns can hold on to a toy for a few moments only (1) and don't have the full ability to pick up a gun that would weigh much more than an infant's toy. Very simply, if a baby was able to get past the very large barrier of acquiring a gun, they would then have to get past the physically impossible barrier of them using a gun. Once again, "it's possible" isn't a justifiable argument without giving us the actual story of how it happens.
      I see Pro is trying to bring up sources, but (1) is equipped with none. I will thus consider this claim baseless. If you are gonna make a place for sources, at least make them!

      So Pro brings up that babies cannot possibly just purchase a gun, nor can they possibly use a gun properly. But that is equivalent to a concession: Pro admits that babies should not be entitled to be granted justified ownership of a handgun, let alone a rocket grenade launcher. Scroll up for the complete framework for Pro's definition and framework, because Pro is obviously arguing that Babies entitles not to the proper ownership of a gun because they don't even know how to properly work one of those. Basically, if babies cannot even purchase or even understand how to use a gun: Then obviously, they should not own a gun. If they can, then possibly Babies should be able to use a gun, registered by their father for the kid. Even assuming that it is no harm at all considering Babies cannot work one of those, there are others too: You simply cannot give an Insane paranoid a gun nor to it a criminal infamously known for using rifles to evade public places and killing the innocent masses. It is simply too dangerous. Pro just provided general benefits for less control for guns, but having literally zero control would be bad. Of course, you won't just give a serial killer a gun and let it go to waste by killing thousands of people instead of just self-defense. Pro would need to justify why babies and serial killers should be able to do everything with a rocket launcher since they are entitled to have ownership over them. I do not support the abolition of gun rights, but neither is "all people" a scope good enough.

      Ah yes, of course, babies cannot fill the forms of gun ownership. In a true ancap society, anyone can just have Grab & Go gun sets without forms. The forms are needed so we can tell which people can own guns, and which ones cannot. Babies aren't able to fill out forms, and thus they should not be entitled to own guns: Basically Pro's case. Serial Killers have a criminal record, and thus they cannot just grab a gun and shoot it considering it is dangerous, common common sense sense. If babies can't use something they are supposed to be able to own, so owning them for the gun company is a complete waste, common common sense sense.

      Overall, I have proven that the "forms" Pro is advocating is the tool to judge who is able to own guns and who is not, and serial killers should not be able to own rocket launchers because it is just dangerous. Pro needs to prove why serial killers or insane paranoid people should be able to just have a gun because they shouldn't. Pro has so far listed zero reasons why *ALL* people should own guns, merely that gun rights should be more liberal and that is it. Overall, please vote Con! I have proved that some people are generally not suited to own a gun and use them properly. Pro has only given why gun rights should be more liberal, but never that ALL PEOPLE should own guns. Vote Con!

      Round 3
      Pro
      I'm going over framework, opponent's points, and then my own, including a new point.

      Framework
      He never touched these points and simply said I shouldn't be able to shift the goal post, which is fair. These are debatable points, but since both sides agree they're fair standards, they've been ceded. The argument about the framework being used against Con's points will be under government forms.

      Opponents points
      We're going to talk about babies, the violent, government forms and RPG's.
      1. My opponent must've skimmed my argument because I very specifically say that the argument "it's legally possible" is simply not enough to have a warranted point. My whole argument was the premise that a baby can't physically access or use a gun, so the them having legal access isn't an issue. This is the equivalent of debating if we should illegalize a bacteria from voting. The bacteria would never be able to claim residency, go to the polls, pick up a pen, and cast a ballot. In the same sense, a baby would never be able to actually get a gun and use it, so unless Con gives a convincing reason why there's going to be and epidemic of newborn mass shooters, then his point isn't warranted. Also, as a side note, the 1 was an accident, there was no source for that point. I would argue that it is logical to say a newborn can't hold a pistol, so it would be up to Con to say that either that isn't logical for whatever reason, or provide a source to counter it. We don't have to have a source for every point said, some are just logical facts or common knowledge.
      2. The violent is completely answered by the following framework application.
      3. So, my opponent cedes the first point of the framework, saying that I get the idea that I can regulate gun access to those who are not found to be justly entitled, but I don't get any use of the framework. He cedes that I get to say the violent and newborns would not be seen as justly entitled to guns, but I don't get to enforce this. He says I don't get to use gun paperwork because it's not a true ancap position. I'm going to talk about his ancap remark in my points, but I'm going to just stick to the framing for now. If he cedes that the framing is justified, and we extend the entire argument why the framing is key to fairness and education, then I get access to it. What would be one of the easiest ways to stop someone who isn't "justly entitled" from accessing guns? Paperwork would be an obvious one. The problem is my opponent is trying to block out the framework from existing, despite the fact that he ceded it. If you buy the framework arguments, then let me actually use it, don't let my opponent bury it under personal attacks. Also, if you think my framework stands, then I don't have to justify the violent or newborns owning guns, therefore my opponents points fall.
      4. On the RPG, he dropped my point about doing a gut check to see if you think it is reasonably a gun, so that means he doesn't think an RPG is a gun. I specifically said that it isn't reasonable to say than an RPG is a gun, and his only answer was "it's portable" which doesn't answer my claim, so don't buy any of this argument either.
      5. He dropped the argument that all of the aff points outweigh all the neg points, therefore I win on the basis of my case is stronger than his.

      My points
      1. My opponent dropped my point about combating authoritarianism and how guns are needed to check authoritarian governments from committing genocides and launching wars against each other, so flow that as ceded for Pro.

      2. My opponent dropped my point about stopping crime and the psychological damage caused by rape and sexual assault, so flow that as ceded for Pro.

      3. My opponent dropped my point about rural areas and the economic damage, famine and the uniqueness of hunger as an issue, and animal attacks, so flow that as ceded for pro.

      4. And lastly, my new argument. It's a kind of meta-debate point, but I think it's really important. My opponent said I wasn't defending an ancap position. I have not once in this debate said I was defending an ancap position or that anarcho-capitalism was good, so I can only guess this is a personal attack since my username is Ancap460. I think that my opponent using this personal attack should be and independent voting issue that instantly results in his loss. There's a couple reasons I think this is fairly important, so let's go through the.
      A. Education from debate dies. Cross apply my arguments on framework that say the only real impact we get is the education developed in round, if it be through persuasion skills or topic education. All of this dies if debate devolves into a frenzy of personal attacks against one another. The immediate moment that someone utilizes personal information against an opponent, they must be voted down immediately to ensure that the debate space does not get cluttered with insults. By showing that insults are immediately a losing issue, we ensure that we can hopefully keep it out of of the debate space.
      B. Fairness in debate dies. If our personal history can be brought up against us, then we can never fairly debate a topic we may personally disagree with (which leads to less education). This means that I can never go for the strategic win in a debate round because I have to stay ideologically pure to anarcho-capitalism. It also means that if we can start using each others profiles against one another, we then justify using previous debate rounds against one another. This means that we never get a fair shake outside a handful of topics because we will always have previous points used against us. Only by voting my opponent down can we make sure to keep this idea of bring up an entire debaters profile and debate history against them.
      C. Debate itself dies. This debate should only be judged on the points made in the round, and if we use any other fact, debate dies. The moment that the arguments made by debaters becomes second to anything, especially personal attacks, then debate is meaningless. It means nothing to have this entire debate because it doesn't fit within my personal politics, so I'm going to lose. Only by voting down anybody who uses personal attacks to win rather than their arguments can we ensure that DebateArt.com will stay as a space to productively debate others.

      Con
      I shall make new arguments. This is not the last argument here and as a result, these are below.

      Rebuttal: A newborn cannot work a gun

      Again, this is basically like saying newborns should be able to buy alcohol because they won't be able to buy any anyways, thus the legal drinking age should be abolished down to 0. This is my opponent's entire argument. Now, what if I am not redirecting a newborn, but a 10-year-old boy who definitely can work one of those bad boys yet has no fully developed brain to understand all the precautions and proper usages? What if we had another "Cowboy Robert" that will pump up everyone's kicks[1]?

      Oh yeah, 10-year-olds can use guns[2]. However, those who can use it properly like this guy are rare. Remember that the brain doesn't develop enough until the ages of 18-25[3], and one example should not stand for all of them. Another one: Just because Juju Noda can drive an F3 car at the age of 14[4], it doesn't justify that the driving age should be down to 14, for Juju Noda is a prodigy and not the average person. Our brains aren't ready for guns until the age of 18-25[5]. Pro would need to justify why all minors, including all those who can work a gun but don't know the present precautions and rules for the usage of guns, should be able to own guns.

      I semi-extend my arguments. Just because some minors would most definitely not use and buy any guns(thus harmless) at all doesn't mean all minors should still be allowed guns.

      Again, I am still a libertarian, but I am most definitely not an ancap. If we don't have controls on something potentially dangerous, then it would possibly cause harm. Capitalism is good. Absolute no-government-ism is not.

      Rebuttal: Ancap

      I am amazed that Pro wrote a seemingly-long response on "serial killers", but it is all just attacking me for calling him an ancap and saying that he is not defending an ancap position, which is wrong. Pro merely refuted an argument that is a misinterpretation: A strawman, shall I say? I said it merely as the same thing as "That is most definitely not what a Nazi would defend" and it is not targeting Pro or anyone. I extend the "Serial killer" point. If serial killers have guns they will use it to kill, which is bad. 

      If the debate dies for you, I will happily take the win. I see this as an absolute win!

      Conclusions
      • Minors that can use money and can use guns but are still not old enough to be ready for guns should not be able to own guns
      • Serial killers that intend harm with guns should not be able to own guns
      • Thus, not all people should be able to own guns, and Pro has failed to fulfill his BoP
      • Vote for Con!
      Sources


      Round 4
      Pro
      I'll cover the framework, my opponent's arguments, and then my points.

      Framework
      He still hasn't challenged the framework, so keep it on the flow. Justify that all the arguments of the debate have to follow these rules since he hasn't challenged them.

      Opponent's points
      1. He's shifted his newborn point to minors in general, and this argument is handled 100% under the framework. Extend the arguments out of the second round that say why the framework is good, but specifically point 1C under my opponent's points in round 2. This argument says that every right that exists is regulated, including the right to vote and free speech. Extend the unchallenged point that education from the debate is the only thing that truly comes out of it and that we should have conversations that focus on having educational conversations rather than technical conversations. The only realistic way to enforce rights for the "justly entitled", which would mean that regulations would definitely have a place in the conversation. If we look at the phrasing of the original 2nd Amendment "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (1) This clearly says that the of right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, yet there's restrictions on the kind of guns and who can own guns in the United States. If we try to have a conversation minus the realistic idea that, though all be may available to be "justly entitled", not all of them will be "justly entitled". He never answered this, as well as the argument that I get to utilize regulations to access all of this framing. If he had challenged the framework, then it could be questioned if I should truly get access to all of this, but he never challenged it. Pretty much, I don't have to defend minors handling guns, because they wouldn't be "justly entitled" and there would be regulations to prevent access.

      2. On serial killers, I have three answers.
      A. If it's someone who already has committed a crime and is a convicted felon, then the framework once again solves. Extend all the answers.
      B. If it's someone who hasn't committed a crime and is just a citizen, then I would argue that greater access to guns as a whole solves the situation more so. Extend across my second point that says crime rates would go down as a whole because criminals will get guns no matter what (which also means that, on the serial killer point, I don't make the issue worse, so it's not a reason to vote for Con) and that this will allow law abiding citizens to own guns which allows them to be able to protect themselves. He's never challenged this, so it answers the serial killer issue, and actually solves it better.

      3. Even if kids hurting themselves and crime slightly ticks up, since there is still school systems, salesman that can stop a sale, and police to keep these numbers relatively low, it still doesn't outweigh the negative case, and he's ceded this twice now, so he agrees that I win on this point.

      My points
      1. My opponent dropped my point about combating authoritarianism and how guns are needed to check authoritarian governments from committing genocides and launching wars against each other, so flow that as ceded for Pro.

      2. My opponent dropped my point about stopping crime and the psychological damage caused by rape and sexual assault, so flow that as ceded for Pro.

      3. My opponent dropped my point about rural areas and the economic damage, famine and the uniqueness of hunger as an issue, and animal attacks, so flow that as ceded for pro.

      4. Firstly, he tries to say that his personal attack was only about serial killers and is trying to bury it, don't let him bury it. He also tries to say that he said ancap at random, and it would have been the same as him saying nazi, but why did he say ancap. To say that ancap randomly came out of nowhere, and it wasn't a personal attack when my profile pic and username are both symbols of anarcho-capitalism is absolutely absurd. It was very clearly a personal attack because I'm trying to win the debate. Also, his answer to all the damage done to debate space when we allow personal attacks being "well then forfeit and give me the win". He's literally trying to bully me out of the round, and when I said personal attacks are bad for debate, his answer was "guess I win". Do not allow that to stand. Extend across all my impacts since he didn't challenge them. Extend across that we will never learn anything from debate again, that debates will never be fair again, and the fact that personal attacks kill debate as a whole. If we don't shoot down users who use personal attacks, then websites like this will look like the presidential debates. (2)

      Conclusion
      My case outweighs, I've successfully disproved my opponent's points, my opponent never challenged my framework, and my opponent has defaulted to personal attacks to win, and for all of these reasons, Vote Pro!


      Con
      Pre-argument

      It took me a few days to finally be ready to make this argument because I had literal DAYS wondering what Pro's argument even is.

      I will summarize my opponent's points.

      • Kids using guns ---> Not justly entitled
      • Murderers ---> Let other people get guns to protect themselves
      Arguments

      I will argue the two points above today.

      Not justly entitled

      It is my opponent that is shifting the goalpost or making the goalpost as clear as mud. Remember his resolution: "All people should have the right to own guns".

      • Let's just say if all people are justly entitled, then what about minors? Pro defended not that point and did not think them as really justly entitled to own guns.
      • Pro's resolution would argue for a world in which everyone is entitled to own guns, which disproves himself since he does not think newborns can even work a gun nor have the means to purchase them. 
      • The modifier "All people" and the word "Rights" are present, which the latter is somehow not to be granted to all human beings, would create a paradox as the resolution argues that all people should have something that only some people should be able to have regardless, which is impossible to prove.
      Either way, Pro failed to fulfill his BoP.

      Let other people get guns

      This creates more problems, as if people who haven't used a gun use a gun for malicious intents, that just makes the thing worse. Minors are shown to be able to work a gun but do not have the mind to use a gun at the right time at the right places and not use it for violence. We are arguing that we should let everyone be able to own guns, including newborns and crime committers, and so that Pro's framework holds zero value.

      Eventually, we are closing gun shops and making them limited, so you now know not everyone should be able to own a gun, which is not the resolution Pro is for. Pro agrees that we should ban some people from using guns, which disproves his point at all.

      Conclusions:
      • Pro is now moving the goalpost arguing for something he is not for
      • Pro failed to fulfill his BoP
      • I have demonstrated why for all people being able to own guns is bad, even Pro agrees
      • Vote Con.




      .

      Round 5
      Pro
      Since this is the final speech, I'm simply going to give a list of reasons that Pro wins the debate, with the top being most important and it getting less important (but still relevant) as the list goes down.

      1. Since the second round Pro speech, I've brought that Pro simply outweighs Con. What this means is that if we took everything I solve for (especially since none of it was challenged by Con) which includes ending authoritarian governments and their genocides and wars, drastically lowering rapes and sexual assaults and all of the psychological damage done by this, and the economic crisis and food insecurity that would be caused in rural areas as well as lowering bear attacks, and we weighed all this against Con, which is a slight increase in crime rates from kids having access to guns (especially since he cedes that my second point solves), then obviously the Pro plan does more good. Don't let him answer this now, especially since he ceded it three times and the only rule in the description is no new args in last speech. What this means if you don't buy my framework argument or all of the logistical arguments I've made and you think kids will have legal and easy access to guns, it simply doesn't compare to what Pro solves for. He's dropped this three times now, despite me putting this at the end of his points every single one of my speeches, minus the first one. Use this argument to extend the entirety of my points. Very simply, I win on this point alone.

      2. He completely drops the personal attack point. The personal attack he made threatens the entirety of this debate community. Websites like Debate Art only function on the basis that we're all going to act civil towards each other, and this debate is a simple win or loss vote, meaning you can't give him the victory if he is going to fall to such lows. I brought up how fairness, education, and online debate forums like this as a whole will simply die if we don't vote down people who utilize personal attacks. His answer to this was that I should forfeit and let him win if I think the debate has died. This is simply trying to bully me out of the debate, and shouldn't be tolerated. If you want to see this debate thrive as a community of critical thinkers able to engage as discourse, and not devolve into a website of people insulting each other and trolls ruining debates, you have to vote down Con. You can't tolerate any steps into the pit that is flame wars online to ensure that we stay above that and benefit from the fairness and education that debates have to offer.

      3. The only answer he has is minors will have access to guns, which inherently doesn't stand to the laundry list of answers I gave in the speech before. I said that the issue would be solved by school system education, salesman refusing to sell children guns, and cops doing their due diligence. He doesn't answer any of these, and even if none of them solve 100%, the point is that the number is still relatively small. This number being small is key to the first argument about Pro outweighing Con. If there's ten more shootings a year, but all authoritarian governments are gone and the conflicts they cause, then I would argue the world is better, and when you couple that with all the other untouched Pro points, then I win. The reason it's key to show reasons that his number wouldn't explode is so he doesn't try to irrationally explode it to saying that every child is going on a mass shooting spree. That isn't practical to argue and isn't realistic with all of the existing factors to help prevent that. Also, if you don't buy the framework argument, buy all of these logistic reasons that children will have to jump hurdles to get guns.

      4. On criminals, extend the entirety of the second Pro point that says crime rates as a whole go down because law abiding citizens gain a greater ability to defend themselves. He ceded this point and agrees that criminal rates would go down, not up, so it inherently strengthens Pro's case.

      5. Extend the framework argument. The reason it's the least important in the round is that, even if you don't buy any of my framework arguments, then you still need to buy the rest of the debate. While the framework has been an important part of the Pro strategy, it isn't going to win or lose me the debate. Honestly, all the real leg work is done by my first two points, and the third and fourth act as defense to prove why Con shouldn't win. That's all the framework argument was as well, and I still think it stands, but if you think I've lost all the framework points, shoot down the argument, not the side. Extend everything else in the debate round. Moving on to the framework argument itself, my opponent never engages with any of my arguments. I give countless reasons the entire debate why me having to justify groups that wouldn't be found justly entitled isn't good for the debate. The most important is that we should debate the most educational version of the resolution, and that the framework is key to making that happen. He never disagrees that the education on the topic is the only thing we gain out of the debate and that putting regulations on rights is the only realistic way to talk about rights. He never disagrees that regulations on this right exist in countries where this right is a reality, and these regulations include age and felony based restrictions. My opponent wants to have this conversation minus any relevant and realistic interpretation of the real world, and that inherently leads to non educational conversations. His only answer is that I need to defend the resolution with no framework for the round, but has never warranted why and has never engaged with my warrants. All this proves is that the framework stands as a second line of defense against all his points, behind all of the logistical arguments.

      Conclusion
      Pro deserves the your vote. Pro solves more issues, doesn't destroy the fairness and education of this debate platform, and answers all of Con's points both through an existing framework and logistically. With all of this, Pro is the only possible vote!
      Con
      Rebuttals

      This is the last argument I will probably be writing within this nation. I will refute my opponent's each of the 5 points.

      1. Framework

      I do not care about his arguments presented in the first round because that calls for only more libertarian gun laws, not that "All people should own guns". We both agree that newborns have no reason to use a gun nor could he work with one, so making newborns(which are people) having the right to own guns is redundant. We also know that adolescents are not developed enough to use guns, the same logic with driving cars and smoking cigarettes(legally, I suppose); as well as people that will use guns with harm intentionally.

      He obviously did not fix his framework. To him, the right is something only some people get to have and adolescents and criminals do not have it. Pro never resolves how to even prove his role because he calls to grant everyone something only some people are having anyways.

      2. Personal Attack

      I wouldn't refute stuff I don't need to if I know I am winning, but whatever, this is my last debate and I will use it wisely.

      I just called his decision "an ancap case" or something like that and he is furious. Guys, a good debater should have a tamed and controlled temper, and if something that can barely be misinterpreted as "a personal attack" counts as a personal attack then calling people by any characteristics should be a big no-no because you don't know if you "complimenting" him is offensive to him, whether if it is this way in real life or not. This is not a personal attack and it is something like "This is not something an ancap would defend" which is barely personal anyways. Plus, if this debate dies for you, then I will happily take the win, win-win. This is not big enough to be considered a danger to the site as well as his well-being, because I didn't mean it and it is not that strong, at least far less strong compared to the N-word.

      It is shocking that my opponent ranted so much off of a single statement. This entire thing holds no value to the bigger picture.

      3. Minors

      Pro agrees that minors handling guns is dangerous and the number of minors using guns should be reduced, so I don't see where the part where it says "All people" is within it. Pro is not proving the BoP he has. Obviously, minors and criminals should not be able to own guns, and encouraging to crash drunk drivers for the sake of "All people should be able to own cars" is a very bad policy. Pro acknowledges that children could use those guns at the wrong place, and if they have the potential danger of doing it, why not just prohibit them from owning guns?

      4. Criminals

      It could go both ways. People can use guns for good or they can be evil. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, and if the policy is enforced completely you would have barely anyone left to produce goods because guns are dangerous and people could use it for evil easily.

      5. Resolution

      No, no, it is not the most rational to always debate the "most rational resolution" because people can obviously interpret it as something else. Pro has "justified" proving that all people should have something that he thinks only some people would be justly entitled to owning and using them. That is absurd in any normal logic.

      Conclusion
      • Newborns, adolescents, and criminals are not justly entitled to own guns, and they should not.
      • Pro puts up an oxymoron that is impossible to prove
      • I have used lots of sources, Pro used none
      • Please vote Con and have a great time