Instigator / Pro
0
1517
rating
11
debates
59.09%
won
Topic
#2420

All people should have the right to own guns.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

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.

-->
@DebateArt.com

Yay! It's fixed!

Also, you work fast! Props to the programming team!

bbb

RFD: Intel tries for another EZ win by kritiking the resolution, stressing the "ALL" people have the right. Let's see if it worked.

R2: Ancap notes that babies cannot actually wield or buy weapons, though this is a double edged sword for him. Con notes that because Con cannot (responsibly) use guns, that they do not have the rights to them.

R3: Ancap kinda talks over con especially with stressing on other reasons to own guns, and tries to take down the kritik about other "gun types". Con moves his idea further to young children potentially being in danger with gun use.

R4: Ancap tries to hold his "framework" but uses 2nd amendment, which is a US thing. He accuses Intel of attacking him, but... that's not the core part of the debate, to be honest. Con just repeats that Ancap failed to adjust for minors using guns...

R5: Ancap brings it all in by trying to note the benefits of allowing all people to own guns better than ... con's negative impacts. Since Con did not attack these, it's interesting to compare "check authoritarian governments" + rape and sexual assault+ rural areas. However Con notes that merely loosening gun control itself could lead to these results, not, letting everyone own guns. I feel like the child point alone makes pro's burden unfulfilled.

Conclusion: If Ancap made this debate about letting people above 18 who had no criminal activity, obtain guns, then he could've handily had this debate. But all people having guns seems too much rights as con notes. It's unclear if we are comparing status quo to everyone have gun, vs only government have gun to everyone have gun. Con seems to be advocating for the first comparison, and pro doesn't seem to knock away the looseness of his policy. So pro loses the debate.

-->
@MisterChris

sorry I was in the middle of typing it when I had to eat lunch. It'll be here.

-->
@seldiora

RFD?

lol shot my first gun at 2

-->
@Intelligence_06

I forgot my sources, so I'm going to put them here. One of them is the Bill of Rights and the other is a Youtube video of the presidential debates, so neither of them are very necessary facts.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TTtlFpM5Ss&ab_channel=FoxBusiness

i am anc2006, i disagree, i am no ancap, etc etc