Gun control
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
I was requested by the contender to post this debate.
I don't know exactly where they stand on this topic so I can't form any direct specific detailed arguments.
I can try to play oppositional advocate as best as it matches to my true position.
In the end , there may or may not be much to agree or disagree with.
CON opens the debate without any term defined or thesis expressed. CON doesn't even bother to clarify what side of the issue he's on.
PRO offers no thesis or arguments in support of his position. PRO's R1 is basically just a cut and paste from the article he (sort of) cites:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/harvard-gun-ownership-study-self-defense/
CON replies with maximal cynicism- senseless violence should and must continue because background checks don't make a difference.
PRO correctly points out that CON dropped most of PRO's argument. PRO argues that all guns must be banned for World Peace but admits that argument is unrealistic.
CON correctly points out that PRO dropped all of PRO's argument.
PRO agrees and re-iterates some points about the perils of suicide and NRA political suppression.
Ultimately, this was a public policy debate where neither side offered any serious course of action There's a lot of steps to consider between "Ban all Guns" and "achieve world peace" PRO used some sources hit some point but never really discusses what government should enact what policies in what contexts. CON never really got around to telling us his position on gun control but we might infer from his opposition on background checks.
This VOTER finds that neither argument was sufficient or coherent enough to award victory.
Even if one side barely contributes, you still have to at least point to an argument the other side made that upheld their position. It’s not automatic that a contribution is pertinent.
Votes requested.
Con provides absolutely nothing of substance and Pro provides 3 rounds of relative substance.....It's a no brainer, as well you know.
Someone whinges and the vote get's removed.
Is it any wonder that no one bothers to vote.
D******D
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
#1. Instigator Con doesn't seem to know what's what, so should have declined contender Pro's request.
#3. Con gives us a brief intro into life on the streets.
#5 Con unwisely rests upon the strength of #3.
#2.4.6. Pro, at least provides 3 rounds of relative substance, emotion and thoughtfulness. Thereby they should be acknowledged for their effort.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter is kind of specific about what Con said in R2, but doesn't consider specific points made by Pro, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. Acknowledging effort is nice, but not sufficient.
impressively diplomatic
why do you hope i win?
I hope you win
i was just wanting to do a debate on gun control and I want people to have a background check before they even set there hands on a gun