Instigator / Con
1
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#3460

Gun control

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
1
1455
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.