Resolved: All people should have the right to own guns.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This debate is the resolution. Kritiks are allowed from the negative. As the affirmative, I won't kritik the resolution. All definitions and framing will be laid out in the first aff speech, but since it's in a speech and not the description, you can debate the framing and definitions as unfair, wrong, etc. Lastly, no new arguments in the last speech for either side.
- The term "Rights" should be understood in a realistic sense and there are limits as to what "Gun rights" mean, such as limits to felons and ill-minded people as well as the banning of automatic MGs
- The resolution means that every single person, at any point of their life, should be able to bear arms, and Gun rights for the people can still exist even if there are age restrictions
something to which one has a just claim: such asa: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitledb(1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural(2)rights plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
- According to Pro, every single person should be justly entitled to owning firearms
- A child that died at age 9
- A child that is born mentally disabled
- the whole amount, quantity, or extent of
- as much as possible
- every member or individual component of
- the whole number or sum of
- Any whatever
P1: The resolution ensures that every single person, at all times, should be able to own guns without restrictions when interpreted with academic and realistic definitionP2: Some groups are not to be trusted with a gun, as a result they should not be able to own gunsC1: As a result, the resolution is proven false.
- Rights have restrictions on them realistically
- “As much as possible”
Touse the United States as an example, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute as there is restrictions in regards to child pornography. To look at the second amendment for a more contextual example, felons and the mentally ill cannot own weapons, as well as fully automatic weapons are banned.
- Pro bears the BoP, I do not
- All I have to prove is that the proposition isn't worth being proposed into reality
- Pro didn't place down restrictions in R1, meaning that the proposition has no restrictions
- Obviously, granting gun rights to children and criminals would be bad
- It isn't worth being proposed into reality
- Pro fails to fulfill the burden of proof
- My opponent allowed kritiks
- I have made a kritik regarding Children, Criminals, etc.
- If correct, my kritik on that specific matter will stand
- I have proven that I do not bear the BoP in a round that I can post new arguments
- The BoP always rest on the claim-maker(which is Pro, and not me) unless specified, all I need to do is disprove Pro
- All I need to do is prove that not all people should have the right to own guns
- Pro has made a compelling case about restrictions of rights
- Pro did not list any restrictions at all in the first speech, the only speech he is allowed to do so(He didn't equate this to the 2nd amendment, just COMPARED)
- Since having a right with unknown restrictions is absurd and ridiculous, it is right to assume that there is NO restrictions placed upon this right
- Murderers, Infants, and psychopaths(which are definitely people) should definitely not own guns, as they are not justly entitled to guns and would possibly cause threat
- It is possible to grant every single living human being gun rights with the signing of a pen
- Thus, not "all" people should have the right to own guns
- The definition of "Gun" is not given by the instigator
- The academic definition of "gun" includes RPG cannons and Heavy MGs and even Katyushas, and not just pistols and rifles.
- As a result, according to Pro, law-abiding sane adults should have the right to freely operate heavy machine guns, even the untrained ones
- That, above, is absurd
- Logically, Pro's argument is just whatever is presented
- Thus, not all people should have the right to own "guns"
- Existing examples shows that in environments where owning guns isn't the norm, guns are a threat instead of a peace-protector
- Those people who caused the threat would be better off without guns, and should not have the right to own guns
- As a result, not "all" people should have the right to own guns
- Pro specified that neither of us can make new speeches in the final round
- The rule is agreed upon by both debaters
- As a result, he won't be able to refute my R3 Arguments