Instigator / Pro
0
1354
rating
66
debates
18.18%
won
Topic

Getting rid of guns is useless against mankind's destruction.

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1681
rating
89
debates
73.6%
won
Description
~ 1,107 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Really doubt that this is disputable but there can be a but.

The fact of finding the cause of a problem to wipe it out along with the problem holds so true.

Banning guns, finding them, having a total purge will not do a thing of ending these horror stories.

Hypothetically, if we had a global tracking system that could locate all guns everywhere, dismantle, disassemble them, pulverize all ammunition , we'd still have a problem.

It's the same reason why you can't get rid of so called racism with laws.

What a wonderful world.

Now, any takers of the opposite side, let's tango.
Message, comment for question and answers.

Round 1
Pro
So basically, guns for all intent and purposes are not the issue just like cars .

Now do you think guns will ever be no more? 
Why do they still exist as such ?

So why all this discussion on news radio and talkshows about guns?

A discussion is awesome ratings. Really at the end of it .
So what do we have here?
A facade perhaps with a ruse of proposed suggested perceived solutions.
People cry and protest wanting these shootings and massacres to stop.

But they know it is not going to end. They know, may not admit , but will have to digest that it's not the guns.

Nowhere in this backward , corrupted world is it the guns.

What's next then sir, ma'am?
Do we just get rid of people?

Well....get rid of a part of them.


Con
I understand people may accuse me of taking such ridiculous topics as something wrong, but that is exactly what I do. I take only debate topics that I think are wrong, and I instigate only topics that I think is right. If you can change my mind, do it if you will.

Definitions

There are no explicitly special requirements on definitions that deviate enormous margins from the everyday utility of such terms, so they will be interpreted by everyday usage, and the usage of the dictionary is encouraged as a standardized measurement of what exactly a word means. Of course Mall, my opponent, can argue against the definitions, but only if the proof is more authentic than the credible dictionary itself.

From merriam-websters:
Get rid of: : to do something so as to no longer have or be affected or bothered by (something or someone that is unwanted)
Guns: : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
// I believe this is what Pro means by "Guns" as shown in his R1 argument.
Against: : in opposition or hostility to
Mankind: : the human race the totality of human beings
// There is another definiton regarding only the set of Men, as opposed to women and other individuals such as those with chromosomes XXY,  but they are regardless both wielders and victims of guns, at least they could be.
Destruction: : the action or process of destroying something(or the state thereof, if it is a noun)
  • Destroy: : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of

As a result, the resolution shall be interpreted as:
The removal of firearm-like projectile weapons is ineffective in opposing people from ruining the existence or functions of things.
Argument: Firearms Do Destroy

Yup, that is the argument.

  1. If something causes destruction, then the removal of that thing will cause no more destruction from that thing(thus reducing or effectively opposing destruction)
  2. Guns cause destruction
  3. Thus, the removal or riddance of guns will reduce and oppose destruction.
Statement 1 is a logical fact, it is literally common sense. If statement 2 is provable, then the state 3, or effectively what the debate topic is, will be proven on behalf of the side I am on. Since humans can wield guns, if guns do indeed destroy things, getting rid of guns will definitely effectively reduce the amount of damage cause by guns by humans, thus “against mankind's destruction".

Nineteen young children and two adults have died in a shooting at a primary school in south Texas. The gunman opened fire at Robb Elementary School - which teaches children aged seven to 10 - in the city of Uvalde before he was killed by law enforcement, officials said.
Humans are ruining the existence and function of other humans using guns in Texas, United States. Guns were used by humans for destruction.

The U.S. has more than 33,000 gun deaths per year. In 2017, there were 39,773 deaths by firearms, the highest since 1986. Of these deaths, 23,854 were by suicide, and 14,542 were homicides, 12 deaths per 100,000 people, and seven deaths per 100,000 people.
Destruction using guns has occurred in not only Texas, but all throughout the US.

To my knowledge, and this date, there is no film or film combination that, by itself, will stop a bullet. There are, however, many thick films or combinations of thick films that, when applied to a very thick heavy glass, may stop a round from a small-caliber handgun. 
Which means that it is easy for guns to cause destruction to glass, and really hard for glass to stop the destruction caused by guns. Even the most bulletproof of the glass panes, when applied practically, stands no chance against ammunition of heavy and large guns.

Damage has been caused by guns before. Here is proof that the ammunition of a gun has essentially ruined a car window, both in appearance and utility.

ARTILLERY. 75% Of all Combat deaths were by Artillery Fire. “The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded.
Guns do destruction not only in domestic terrorism, but also in warfare as well. Millions of people died as a result of artillery fire, which are guns. Since wars like the WWI are majorly participated by humans, that just proves my point correctly.

CONCLUSION: GUNS USED BY HUMANS DO CAUSE DESTRUCTION.

The riddance of guns will inevitably reduce the amount of destruction caused by the human race. Sure, there may sticky bombs and knives and daggers and darts still lying around somewhere, but removing a major factor of warfare and domestic terrorism from human use will definitely reduce the amount of destruction caused by humans. Removing one gun is removing one gun, no destruction will be caused by it anymore. Although I disagree with the point that mankind will be immortal and everlasting, the riddance of firearms and projectile weapons will be effective against destruction for the human race.

VOTE CON!

Sources are embedded above. Click them to see them.

Your move.
Round 2
Pro
"Argument: Firearms Do Destroy"

Not the topic. No disagreement there .

"Yup, that is the argument."

Wasting time with something irrelevant.

"If something causes destruction, then the removal of that thing will cause no more destruction from that thing(thus reducing or effectively opposing destruction)"

This all gets negated when that something is replaced to do the same thing.

"Guns cause destruction"

Not the topic. No disagreement there .

"Thus, the removal or riddance of guns will reduce and oppose destruction."

It will not based on the counter points. Refrain from thinking in a box.

"Statement 1 is a logical fact, it is literally common sense. "

It's common sense in a vacuum, in a little space.
But what is the context of the world?

"If statement 2 is provable, then the state 3, or effectively what the debate topic is"

Goalpost is being moved. Common mistake no doubt. However the topic is that removal of guns is useless or does nothing to stop mankind's destruction as we witness on a day to day. Hence guns are not the problem.

"Since humans can wield guns, "

Right , humans wield guns. Guns don't wield themselves.

"if guns do indeed destroy things,getting rid of guns will definitely effectively reduce the amount of damage cause by guns by humans"

Talk about common sense. It's common sense in the context, in the history of the world, that eliminating guns will not end mankind's destruction.

You say " reduce the amount " so that means mankind will still be destroying themselves. You say " cause by guns by humans". The cause of a cause of a cause. The gun isn't sentenced to prison, the criminal that used it is sentenced.

The killing of someone unjustly was brought on by the use of a gun from someone who decided to use it that  arrived to an area by use of a car to do the shooting. In turn, a car that was filled up with gasoline able to be obtained by someone else opening up to run the gas station and on and on and on.

What is the determining factor in cause?
The inanimate object can't determine anything. The person decides and determines which would make that person the liable root cause .

"Humans are ruining the existence and function of other humans using guns in Texas, United States. Guns were used by humans for destruction."

Right , guns were used BY humans. Humans cause the destruction. So because humans ruin or destroy life, history shows by law , they get prosecuted.

"Destruction using guns has occurred in not only Texas, but all throughout the US."

No dispute there. Guns are used to kill. Just don't think without guns, the killing stops.

"Which means that it is easy for guns to cause destruction to glass, and really hard for glass to stop the destruction caused by guns. Even the most bulletproof of the glass panes, when applied practically, stands no chance against ammunition of heavy and large guns."

Responding to assure no unnoticed points. No dispute there. Can't dispute what is not the topic. Once more, not arguing that firearms are useless for killing, just the taking away of them is useless to end killing.

Here again , to reiterate.
No dispute there. Guns are used to kill. Just don't think without guns, the killing stops.

"Damage has been caused by guns before. Here is proof that the ammunition of a gun has essentially ruined a car window, both in appearance and utility."

We both know this is irrelevant. It appears evasive to the straightforward truth that the removal of a part of people is useful to stopping mankind's destruction. Just removing a part of a person.

"Guns do destruction not only in domestic terrorism, but also in warfare as well. Millions of people died as a result of artillery fire, which are guns. Since wars like the WWI are majorly participated by humans, that just proves my point correctly."

I'd like to ask this question. What do you think would happen if guns , all the guns vanished?

It doesn't need to be hypothetical. What if they never existed?

"CONCLUSION: GUNS USED BY HUMANS DO CAUSE DESTRUCTION."

That conclusion that ñeeds to be addressed in this debate is can and will humans cause destruction without guns?

No running from that reality any further.

"The riddance of guns will inevitably reduce the amount of destruction caused by the human race. "

Will there still be human destruction?
Yes , history has shown that .

Can something else be used in the place of guns?
Yes as people can still be and will be destructive without guns. They can and have invented alternate forms of mass destruction.

"Sure, there may sticky bombs and knives and daggers and darts still lying around somewhere,"

Correct so you concede there'll still be the destruction of mankind.

"but removing a major factor of warfare and domestic terrorism from human use will definitely reduce the amount of destruction caused by humans."

Have you forgotten what bombs can do?
Do you remember the attacks of September 11?

"Removing one gun is removing one gun, no destruction will be caused by it anymore. "

This comes as so delusional. It's like you live in a world where if a gun is not available, like there's no other form of deadly force. People out here get beaten to death. We don't get rid of hands that make fists. We just lock up those hands once they get out of hand.

Also I don't know how many more times I have to say this. It's not about the gun killing a person. It's about the killing of a person regardless. Taking a gun away doesn't stop that.

"Although I disagree with the point that mankind will be immortal and everlasting, the riddance of firearms and projectile weapons will be effective against destruction for the human race."

In all respect, this is a total lie. This has to be that brainwashed liberal garbage.

No, vote for the truth.

We put people away. In prison or on death row. Not the gun, not the knife, not the car used to strike someone.

I said removed a part of people. What part? The mentality, the decision making that causes everything else to be predestined upon.
Bottom line, the problem is with the person.
A person has to change or decide to not destroy themselves and others.
That gun can be sitting there on the table . Tons of automatic machine guns, rifles, shotguns. They can't destroy anything unless a person manipulates these tools to preserve mankind or vice versa.





Con
Forewords

There is no point in making any new points because I firmly believe that my opponent has not sufficiently defeated it.

I kindly advise my opponent to use the quote block more often, like this.
Insert opponent's quote
Insert own interpretation as response.

I suggest doing this more often as it makes the argument easier to read.

Rebuttals

Not the topic. No disagreement there .
Right, because this is an argument.

This all gets negated when that something is replaced to do the same thing.
I demand Pro to list anything that can "replace to do the same thing". Pro would need to prove that ridding of any quantity of guns, the amount of destruction would always rise up to at least cover it via other methods, so the total amount of destruction either stays unchanged or increases. If it does not increase, and instead decreases, that signifies that the removal of guns is in fact not useless against people destroying things. Pro has brought no source of this sort, not even rational justifications.

On the contrary, there are sources that show that nearly 3/4 of all murders within the US. Murdering a human is destruction as it rids humans of their future potential function as well as their present liveliness.

Firearms still remain the top weapons used in murder cases. According to the latest gun violence statistics FBI released, firearms killed almost three-quarters of the total murder victims. Specifically, the figure amounted to 10,258, accounting for 73.7%.
The destruction done by non-guns would have to triple or quadruple in order to deem the reduction of destruction futile, if all guns are removed now. My opponent has yet to prove this would be the case.

Statement 1 is a logical fact, it is literally common sense.
It's common sense in a vacuum, in a little space.
But what is the context of the world?

If something is being destroyed, stripped of any way it could be used and its existence, how could it be used once again?(Ignore glitch DART physics, this is to show what the opponent is responding to, for clarity) This is a self-explanatory common sense not only in "this world", but in logic as a meta-entity. Pro has yet to give sufficient prove of how this is not so.

"If statement 2 is provable, then the state 3, or effectively what the debate topic is"
Goalpost is being moved. Common mistake no doubt. However the topic is that removal of guns is useless or does nothing to stop mankind's destruction as we witness on a day to day. Hence guns are not the problem.
Yet I am discussing mankind's destruction on a day-to-day basis. I am talking of gun violence and murder and war and how people destroy things realistically backed with proof made by real people from the real world. It is the opponent who used zero sources and used barely any clarity when discussing this. Borderline: I don't think I had move the goalpost because what I am discussing is completely what the opponent intended for me to discuss.

Right , humans wield guns. Guns don't wield themselves.
Auto-turrets are not counted towards this list ideally, unless people control them. However, most guns used are clearly manual or semi-automatic and controlled by humans.[2] Therefore, the total number is pretty close to what the data before resembles, just because humans are responsible for the vast majority of gunshots.

Talk about common sense. It's common sense in the context, in the history of the world, that eliminating guns will not end mankind's destruction.
But it reduces it. And that works. A functioning resistor works well enough against the current, even though it does not bring the current down to zero. These come from actual definitions that are clearly sourced above. My opponent did not put any doubt in the definitions sourced with any justifications as written, so this concern is entirely with no base and support.

You say " reduce the amount " so that means mankind will still be destroying themselves. You say " cause by guns by humans". The cause of a cause of a cause. The gun isn't sentenced to prison, the criminal that used it is sentenced.
The gun is a tool used to destroy, and destruction is responsible by the gun immediately. The reason we imprison people and not guns is because a gun does not know if it is fired or not. The human completely controls the gun and the human is the one deserving of punishment. Either way, removing guns still probably reduce human destruction. You can't just as a gun-wielding robber suddenly switch to fists or explosives, as a fist doesn't do nearly as much destruction, and explosives are MUCH MORE regulated than guns[3]. In many US states, you can just buy a gun without a permit[1]. The opposing faction must prove that by remoing all guns, humans will still cause as much if not more damage, to win. I am waiting.

No dispute there. Guns are used to kill. Just don't think without guns, the killing stops.
To reiterate, the definition doesn't need all killing to be stopped. A decrease in amount destroyed is sufficient in satisfying "against human destruction".

I'd like to ask this question. What do you think would happen if guns , all the guns vanished?

It doesn't need to be hypothetical. What if they never existed?
If all guns vanished, then simply the rate of destruction will decrease, backed by speculations based on real data.

If they never existed, then something else will take its place, but that would be irrelevant as there are no guns to get rid of.

That conclusion that ñeeds to be addressed in this debate is can and will humans cause destruction without guns?
Yes, and arguably at a smaller rate, which still suffices in proving this side.

Can something else be used in the place of guns?
Yes as people can still be and will be destructive without guns. They can and have invented alternate forms of mass destruction.
[citation needed] [proof needed]

Have you forgotten what bombs can do?
Do you remember the attacks of September 11?
Such outliers are not that important in consideration. Not every robber is Ben Laden. Most people can get access to firearms and most deaths of violence are caused by it, and bombs are not that destructive. Have you forgotten what guns do? Do you remember the statistics of World War 1? I do, over 20 Million people are dead and injured due to guns. Sourced above.

"Although I disagree with the point that mankind will be immortal and everlasting, the riddance of firearms and projectile weapons will be effective against destruction for the human race."
In all respect, this is a total lie. This has to be that brainwashed liberal garbage.
In all respect, this is less of a total lie than what my opponent proposed due to me using authentic sourced to back up a claim and he just used pure speculation despite big sources disagreeing with him. Calling this "brainwashed liberal garbage" is bad conduct nevertheless.


Vote CON.

Round 3
Pro
"Pro would need to prove that ridding of any quantity of guns, the amount of destruction would always rise up to at least cover it via other methods"

Excuse me, do you recall the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001?

People perished without the use of guns .

Let's just look at common everyday destruction health wise . People have poor lifestyle choices that lead to the tearing down of their bodies. Through diet, through abuse of drugs.

If you have no guns, there are other things that still destroy mankind.

Do you not get that?
Do you just have a tunnel vision on guns?

"so the total amount of destruction either stays unchanged or increases."

The topic statement mentions nothing about quantity. It just states destruction period. But giving you that desperate attempt of an argument, people still slaughter people.

The Rwanda massacre , people were slaughtering people with machetes, not only guns. Why? They didn't use what wouldn't kill folks.

Even before guns existed, what do you think happened? What was being used in wars?

Destruction of people have existed long before guns. But somehow people are only hung on the latest invention of a lethal weapon.

"If it does not increase, and instead decreases, that signifies that the removal of guns is in fact not useless against people destroying things."

Yes, that's your argument. But in order to validate it, you have to prove that people will not use some other method to destroy life.
If I'm a murderer but lost my gun, do you think I still won't murder somebody? What kind of faulty logic is that?

"Pro has brought no source of this sort, not even rational justifications."

You're either paying attention to history or you're not. You're either paying attention to the world you live in or you have a detached one. Everything I'm saying if this was an audible conversation is going in one of your ears and out the other .

"On the contrary, there are sources that show that nearly 3/4 of all murders within the US. Murdering a human is destruction as it rids humans of their future potential function as well as their present liveliness."

Here's that tunneling again. The destruction of man is not just murder. The number one or biggest killer is that of heart disease .

Again, the downfall of mankind and their actions.

"The destruction done by non-guns would have to triple or quadruple in order to deem the reduction of destruction futile,"

So number one, you agree that there will still be destruction upon man by man by emission here. That's what the topic statement states.

If all guns no longer existed, you're arguing that people who desire to kill folks unjustly will somehow no longer desire it. They will not when you know that there are alternative ways to kill a person.

Since you're hung on numbers, how many centuries as a collective has there been without guns but with the slaying of human beings versus the lesser amount of centuries with guns?

The root cause of mankind's destruction is the person. No matter what is done, it is useless until that person or part of a person is seized up. Either by imprisonment or mindset.

"If something is being destroyed, stripped of any way it could be used and its existence, how could it be used once again?
This is a self-explanatory common sense not only in "this world", but in logic as a meta-entity. Pro has yet to give sufficient prove of how this is not so."

You're either misunderstanding my point or throwing a red herring.

I said it's common sense in a vacuum or in a particular short scale context. But the larger context is this world containing people that destroy themselves everyday.

Now that context would hold a vast many things of annihilation because we're talking about mankind, the world.

Just as people are born everyday, somebody died. People are aborting unborn babies. A potential life extinguished which would count as destruction upon man.

All these things go on aside from pulling a trigger. Not pulling a trigger doesn't end that. It's just an equivalent.
The problem is destruction period.
The problem is not solved by just stopping to pull the trigger.

"Yet I am discussing mankind's destruction on a day-to-day basis. I am talking of gun violence and murder and war and how people destroy things realistically backed with proof made by real people from the real world. "

Not where the goalpost is. I understand it's where to run in order to make your opposing argument about how guns destroy. But I never said they didn't. So no point in arguing that. I'm saying as quite simply and obvious as the world has shown us, aside from gun usage at all, people still perish.

"It is the opponent who used zero sources and used barely any clarity when discussing this. "

In other words, you don't believe people expire without guns?
If you acknowledge that, then evidently it's evident to you.

"I don't think I had move the goalpost because what I am discussing is completely what the opponent intended for me to discuss."

Prove it. Prove where I said taking away guns are useless because they don't destroy things anyway. See this is what I'm referring to about the goalpost. You see a debate topic statement and run with it .

"just because humans are responsible for the vast majority of gunshots."

What do you mean "vast majority"?
Guns are useless without the use/influence of a person. Not just with that but foundationally by invention.

"But it reduces it. And that works. "

I don't have any evidence that if you take away my gun, I won't still kill you some other way because other ways are available.
How do I and other terrorists know this? Mankind, people have invented bombs, explosives, not to mention aircrafts. We can get real creative. So much for reduction.
Think outside that box of a context you're in .

"My opponent did not put any doubt in the definitions sourced with any justifications as written, so this concern is entirely with no base and support."

I don't know how many times I have to communicate this to you guys, we're not here to debate definitions. The way words are defined and used are important as they serve a purpose. It helps us understand what the other person is talking about. It's nothing to dispute over but just eliminates confusion in communication .

"destruction is responsible by the gun immediately"

Something is out of order here. The destruction is responsible. How does the destruction have a duty of anything? It's the end result from which a person is or was to be responsible.

"Either way, removing guns still probably reduce human destruction. "

What do you mean "probably"? No guessing, it's either a fact or proven.
It's disproven because we know by " 1000 ways to die", that series demonstrated by negligent behavior.

"You can't just as a gun-wielding robber suddenly switch to fists or explosives, as a fist doesn't do nearly as much destruction, and explosives are MUCH MORE regulated than guns"

Do you think a gunman committing a hold-up has to follow rules or has to look for quantity in blowing people away?

It's whatever works. Some bank robberies operate with use of a note. If my gun jams or I'm out of ammunition and cornered with an opposer, don't bet that I won't go hand to hand combat. Not to mention using things around me to cause damage.
I'm daring enough to blow a safe, I can blow the building . Whether it was evacuated or not.

"The opposing faction must prove that by remoing all guns, humans will still cause as much if not more damage, to win. I am waiting. "

If you know that people destroy one another and themselves without guns, having no guns will not end annihilation.

Unless you can prove that people will not attempt to kill premeditated alternatively .

At least in the state of California, it's illegal to carry a concealed dirk or dagger.
Why? Like a gun, it's a fatal alternative.

Where you are getting this less, about as much or more damage I don't know. You can read very well in the topic statement it reads nothing about having more destruction without guns. There's nothing that states this in the debate description.

I'm saying there will still be, there will still be, there will still be destruction without guns at all. You must agree with that as you have not argued against it.

There's no use of getting rid of guns to stop mankind's destruction. That is to end mankind's destruction. To end it, to end it, to end it. Here you come along making a new topic statement saying that I'm saying getting rid of guns is useless in lowering mankind's destruction.

In the description I mentioned "ending these horror stories". It's the horror of man's destruction period.

I understand the emotional response to gun violence and there is perhaps a bias.
But the truth still stands that we're killing ourselves in all kinds of ways.

"To reiterate, the definition doesn't need all killing to be stopped. A decrease in amount destroyed is sufficient in satisfying "against human destruction". "

Well I guess you won't be putting that goalpost back. It's to be expected. Where else are you going to go with a counterargument?
Even with that , it still doesn't work.

"If all guns vanished, then simply the rate of destruction will decrease, backed by speculations based on real data."

Backed by speculation, guessing, probability, numbers, figures, data. Speculation isn't fact, therefore not proof. So you cannot prove that people will not intend to destroy with alternate forms of destruction. What has destroyed the intention in a person to kill? If you are familiar with back up plans, then you know when something fails, there's an alternate plan to compensate.

The murder of Johnny Altinger. You can take away the pipe used by his attacker in attempt to beat him to death with. The person can use a knife. He in fact did use a knife.
Look up the murder of Johnny Altinger if you don't believe it.
See I don't require , nor ask for citations if I believe what was said is true. I already believe it.

The remaining points and responses are in the comments.

"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Main takeaway here .





Con
Seeing that my opponent seemingly went out of bounds, it is a good time that I shall rethink my strategy, as I clearly should not refute absolutely every quote written by the opponent. Since the bound of the debate is, regardless of what anyone thinks without altering how the site works, the debate rounds themselves, the "arguments" or "refutation" written in reality in the comments have thus no weight in protocol consideration, as such, any points argued solely in the comments shall be considered dropped, and I strongly consider my opponent to write the argument more efficiently, both in length and the usage of the quote block. The lack of usage of the quote block makes the argument, especially given how long it is, excruciating to read, as I advise voters to vote CON for the Legibility(S&G) point if Pro still utilizes a format as inlegible as this. I advise Pro to use the quote block, or the underline, bold and italic modifiers onto direct quotation from the opposing side or from any sources, as so that is enough to tell the quotes apart with clarity and ease from one's own interpretation.

The main concern is, as expected, still based on what exactly does "against mankind's destruction" means. My opponent clearly thinks that this means that if "against mankind's destruction" was to be successful, there simply will be no destruction by or from humans, and guns do not do that entirely. This is illustrated by the quote below.
"Pro would need to prove that ridding of any quantity of guns, the amount of destruction would always rise up to at least cover it via other methods"
Excuse me, do you recall the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001?
People perished without the use of guns .
Let's just look at common everyday destruction health wise . People have poor lifestyle choices that lead to the tearing down of their bodies. Through diet, through abuse of drugs.
If you have no guns, there are other things that still destroy mankind.
With this quote illustrated right here, there is simply no need of quoting many of the things below as indeed many of the quotes are simply attempts of convincing me just that above, with the same line of reasoning.

The problem seems to be that Pro had no definitions, and did not add to them either, nor refute. In this case, the definition should stick to what I have cited at the 1st round. "Against" means:
Against: : in opposition or hostility to
Thus, one does not need to prove that all sources of human destruction are gone with the removal of guns, but merely to "oppose". In that case, any removal or reduction of human destruction would technically satisfy the condition of "against".

Take a look at how a resistor works. The resistor is just a material that is not very good at passing currents through it, and its use in circuits are to reduce the current. The formula U=IR signifies an inverse relationship between current and resistance, meaning that resistors work AGAINST current. Despite that, the current almost always is not reduced to zero.

And that is how the initiation against gun works against the current of human destruction. There is no need of removing all destruction. Any reduction of human destruction is already enough to prove the resolution on Con's behalf. Pro has never referred to the definition nor to directly rebut it, therefore, Pro's argument, which seemingly is based upon this standpoint, is thus baseless.

Now, the opponent seems to think that I have moved the goalpost. I have not.
"Yet I am discussing mankind's destruction on a day-to-day basis. I am talking of gun violence and murder and war and how people destroy things realistically backed with proof made by real people from the real world. "
Not where the goalpost is. I understand it's where to run in order to make your opposing argument about how guns destroy. But I never said they didn't. So no point in arguing that. I'm saying as quite simply and obvious as the world has shown us, aside from gun usage at all, people still perish.
Due to that my opponent's argument regarding this seems to be based upon what would technically be baseless as seen above, I would argue my opponent technically didn't even put the goalpost in the ground. All my arguments sprawled as a result of what the definitions mean in reality. I just picked up the goalpost that has not been pitched in the ground and pitched it somewhere it should be, and this maneuver should be possible due to that my action is the first action attempting to even define what the goalpost is.

Now, my opponent is attempting to justify not giving sources.
"It is the opponent who used zero sources and used barely any clarity when discussing this. "
In other words, you don't believe people expire without guns?
If you acknowledge that, then evidently it's evident to you.
Not only was the "people expire without guns" based on the argument which was baseless, he didn't even try giving it a base! I state Hitchens's razor.
Pro has even refused to present any evidence regarding that non-gun violence is practical or that even it exists. Even a video footage of a man pounding another man with a fist without consent would suffice in proving something, but all that Pro has provided was claims, claims without bases. At this moment, all these claims are as authentic as any one that was said spontaneously, for example, "I am the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Japan and the Queen of England simultaneously." That claim has about as much authentic proof as any claim presented by Pro above, folks.

Then again, Pro somehow has the guts to say I have presented no proof.
"If all guns vanished, then simply the rate of destruction will decrease, backed by speculations based on real data."
Backed by speculation, guessing, probability, numbers, figures, data. Speculation isn't fact, therefore not proof. So you cannot prove that people will not intend to destroy with alternate forms of destruction. What has destroyed the intention in a person to kill? If you are familiar with back up plans, then you know when something fails, there's an alternate plan to compensate.
Because artillery consists of most of the damage done both by civil violence and war, without guns, civil violence would decrease and wars would basically come to a halt due to troopers having nothing to do as guns are taken from them. It is almost certain that people would destroy less when guns are removed from humanity.

It is up to Pro to prove that in fact the removal of guns will result in more destruction, which Pro did not. Reminder that just proving that people can kill other people without the usage of the guns is not sufficient. As for this side, I have found no evidence for that, due to no one would be crazy enough of what would have happened if all soldiers are now fighting without guns. If Pro proves it, then I gladly accept my defeat, yet Pro has not.


Therefore, it still has not been proven that ridding of guns "does not work against human destruction", at least not by Pro. Vote CON.
Round 4
Pro
I am placing these remaining responses from last round in this one. This way for those who care about the truth and wish to qualify this information by it actually being in the debate rounds, here it is.

"If they never existed, then something else will take its place, but that would be irrelevant as there are no guns to get rid of."
Thank you very much for conceding to my point. Don't try to backpedal with the "but". People always try to do that and there's no need less you stand contradicted.
You already agree something else would substitute, so it's equivalent. It doesn't matter what we have. You can remove anything you want. There'll just be something else and something else and something else. It's the heart of man, not the inventions.
"Yes, and arguably at a smaller rate, which still suffices in proving this side."
Proving it in some other debate. Not this one. That's not what this one is about.
"Can something else be used in the place of guns?
Yes as people can still be and will be destructive without guns. They can and have invented alternate forms of mass destruction.
[citation needed] [proof needed]"
In answer to the first question, you just conceded that.
Let me play it back for you.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Do you not even believe what you just stated? Where's the proof on that?
If a gun does not exist, an alternate weapon can or will be used.
Do you need proof that terrorist attacks have happened? Was that an illusion in the media? Were those buildings not really demolished?
Come on , let's face this .
"Have you forgotten what bombs can do?
Do you remember the attacks of September 11?
Such outliers are not that important in consideration. Not every robber is Ben Laden. "
Literally downplaying people that have perished. Names engraved on walls and memorials and you're measuring significance.
Tunneling on robbery.
When are you going to look at the context of the entire world?
Mankind's destruction encompasses more than the end result of robbery, murder, getting even, going to war, etc .
"Most people can get access to firearms and most deaths of violence are caused by it, and bombs are not that destructive. "
Just getting repetitive.
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
I don't know what you mean by " not that destructive ". I don't know if you're just measuring by numbers in fatalities or actually dealing with what a bomb is.
The very nature of what it can do. A bomb going off in my lap, what do you think is left of me? I'm pretty well destroyed. A grenade is thrown at me. I step on a mine, it's crazy to think not much is destructive. Ok maybe I'm not completely blown to smithereens. But I'm dead just like a gun shot to the head, I'm dead .
"over 20 Million people are dead and injured due to guns. Sourced above."
Due to people using guns. Get it right. We lock up people,not guns. People are the problem so we get rid of them putting them on death row.
I believe World War one happened so I don't need a source to it. I already know it.
"In all respect, this is less of a total lie than what my opponent proposed due to me using authentic sourced to back up a claim and he just used pure speculation despite big sources disagreeing with him. Calling this "brainwashed liberal garbage" is bad conduct nevertheless."
Call on evidence on yourself.
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Don't tell me this is a lie. People are in agreement and don't even catch it.
At this point it appears we have exhausted everything . It's getting repetitious with points. We're going in circles.
In there next round you can broach new points. I can't say all my points were addressed. You've repeated things back to me like I haven't already stated them.
Unless you have anything new to introduce, this is pretty much a rap.

Everything is pret much repetitive. I don't think anybody will disagree.

If there's something specific you'd like me to respond to that is totally new, we'll go that way. Other than that, you can refer back to my earlier responses. 

I like to drive this home . This will show where the agreement is in my favor and we don't have to complicate this needlessly and repetitiously.

Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"

Remove or fix something of the heart that has the intent of destruction.


Con
PRO refused to make his argument more readable. Instead, what appears to be was that he specifically made his argument LESS readable as his argument is essentially clumped into a borg cube. It is in fact a lot less distinguishable of what the quotations are and what the interpretation in response to the quotations are. Again, I strongly suggest PRO to use either the quote function or to use the BOLD function to distinguish between the two. I have set an example in the round before.

PRO refused to source what he thought was in fact common knowledge. You would think that something as "common knowledge" as the 9/11 attack would at least be sourced as a part of his argument, but nope, all his proof was:
Such outliers are not that important in consideration. Not every robber is Ben Laden. "
Literally downplaying people that have perished. Names engraved on walls and memorials and you're measuring significance.
Tunneling on robbery.
When are you going to look at the context of the entire world?
Mankind's destruction encompasses more than the end result of robbery, murder, getting even, going to war, etc *refuses to elaborate*
Literally downplaying people that have perished. Do you remember the attack of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer on Hong Kong in 1901? Maybe not, because that was entirely fabricated by me. Yet, note that, that was given as much proof as PRO did for his "9/11" argument. Note, I am not denying it, I am merely stating the fact that is true that Pro presented no proof of it. Given the Hitchens's razor that was not contended by Pro at all:
The 9/11 incident, even if it had happened, cannot be used as solid truth here due to even were there evidence, none were presented. If you know something is true yet cannot present proof, then how different is it to someone else with a fact completely fabricated and has equal proof(or a lackthereof)?

As for "Mankind's destruction encompasses more", simply, about no one would use firearm to demolish buildings or to drill through rocks. Guns are specially made to kill people, and not to drill through rocks or to tear down buildings. Those are specifically reserved for, for example, bombs. But since the purpose of explosives are not to be questioned, that part of destruction should be considered to be constant, neither addition nor subtraction. We are only focusing on guns here, and the dependence on guns for two major sources of what guns ought to be used for, civil violence(such as robbery, school shootings, etc) and war clearly implies that given the severe degree of gun-induced damage, given the removal of guns, the amount of destruction caused will be less in a given timeframe in the future if so. Meanwhile, Proo elaborated no more on what other damage guns encompass.

PRO has never questioned my definition, and only mentioned it one time.
I don't know how many times I have to communicate this to you guys, we're not here to debate definitions. The way words are defined and used are important as they serve a purpose. It helps us understand what the other person is talking about. It's nothing to dispute over but just eliminates confusion in communication .
While not providing revisions to any of my definitions. In that case, without better revision and only implication that better definitions exist without giving evidence of what they are, it is as good as an unsourced point to be dismissed.

I will restate that my construct based on net delta destruction is purely based on existing definitions presented and uncontended. So far, I believe my interpretation is more valid than Pro's or as it seems, due to Pro not presenting enough evidence to prove why his interpretation is better.
I don't know what you mean by " not that destructive ". I don't know if you're just measuring by numbers in fatalities or actually dealing with what a bomb is.
The very nature of what it can do. A bomb going off in my lap, what do you think is left of me? I'm pretty well destroyed. A grenade is thrown at me. I step on a mine, it's crazy to think not much is destructive. Ok maybe I'm not completely blown to smithereens. But I'm dead just like a gun shot to the head, I'm dead .
Dunno why I wrote that, but since bombs are not to be questioned, the damage they cause should be considered constant. The fact that evidence point to that guns account to most of the deaths in a war on a battlefield, means that yes, guns do damage and the removal of them decreases destruction. So far, there is no evidence that other sources of destruction will raise the level to pre-gun-ban levels or higher, neither by Pro nor Con.

"Yes, and arguably at a smaller rate, which still suffices in proving this side."
Proving it in some other debate. Not this one. That's not what this one is about.
Saying this is valid in of itself if my barebone foundation was uprooted and dismantled. So far, that has not been attempted successfully.

"over 20 Million people are dead and injured due to guns. Sourced above."
Due to people using guns. Get it right. We lock up people,not guns. People are the problem so we get rid of them putting them on death row.
If "people are going to kill people nonetheless", then guns will not be invented because humans would kill other people just fine without fists. Why are guns a thing then? Exactly, to make killing more efficient. Using explosives requires tapes, sticking and arguably a remote, whereas killing people with guns only requires a trigger. Killing a person requires hundreds of punches to kill a person(possibly) whereas for guns, only 1 is needed. Exactly, the reason people use guns is that it is both affordable and efficient. This means that it is unlikely that any source (or sources) of destruction will just raise the level up to what guns would achieve, unless people are killing people for the sake of murder and this debate using other things. More efficient ways(such as atom bombs) are simply not afforable and more affordable methods such as fists are less efficient. I specifically allow Pro to provide another source of destruction that is more efficient and afforable than firearms in the final round.

In the end, Pro failed to sufficiently prove how guns are not sufficient against human destruction and Con pointed out the flaws in Pro's arguments as well as how unlikely it is for Pro to be true. Vote CON.





Round 5
Pro
"In the end, Pro failed to sufficiently prove how guns are not sufficient against human destruction and Con pointed out the flaws in Pro's arguments as well as how unlikely it is for Pro to be true. "


Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"

We both agree by this statement you made. The statements you make are in quotes.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

If something I stated is quoted along with what you said,is it that difficult to sort out over whom stated which?

Clearly are we're looking for is opposing arguments period. If one person has an opposing argument to his own argument, that's called self refutation.

This is petty to be griping about quotes and all like that. If we can understand each other , then congratulations.

If not, don't be afraid to ask questions or request for clarification.

Now you stated "PRO", you see quotes right there quoting you.

You stated "PRO" which is myself, failed to prove how guns are not enough against human destruction.

I don't even know what that means, let alone claimed that as my position.

Guns against human destruction. I don't follow that. Going against human destruction, does that mean stopping destruction?

No, I say guns create human destruction. That was not the position I was claiming either.

I guess for the final time in this debate, my position according to the topic statement, without guns, there will still be, still be, still be, human destruction.

What in the world is so difficult about that statement?

It's like there's an attempt with intellectual dishonesty here, or just mad goalpost moving.

Beyond that would come off cruel.

You stated so yourself that without guns, if guns did not exist, there still be something else. Something else like what?

You omitted what'd it be in its place as an alternate use for destruction.

But the bottom line factor is that we see world events, deteriorating lifestyles, poor choices causing the destruction of people everyday.

Anything that can be used to destroy, you name it. A car, a piano string/garrote, frozen piece of meat, a brick, a hammer, arson , etc.

Now you try to make it a numbers game when the simple truth is that destruction can exist and does exist regardless of guns because I just named off alternatives.

These things can and do exist in place when guns are not in place or not taking a place of use.

I know this , we know this from topical events. That situation with Altinger and the terrorist attacks, things like that. Just to name a few.

Just that straightforward with destruction of man period. Not how much or how much more or how little destruction with or without guns.

Need not look for something to argue about. If you find that the topic statement is really not controversial, just say so.

If you misunderstand it along with the description, I guess it happens.

That description is supposed to clarify. Then you can ask questions about the description.

People say I didn't do this and that or didn't make this clear. I never gave definitions or whatever. If you guys don't get in the question mode, expect continuous problems.

In that debate description it was mentioned about the ending of horror stories.

In the context of the topic, the destruction, it's greater than any horror movie because it's real life . What's horrible, horrific, horrid, devastating , doesn't stop just from not pulling a trigger.

Con
REBUTTALS

"In the end, Pro failed to sufficiently prove how guns are not sufficient against human destruction and Con pointed out the flaws in Pro's arguments as well as how unlikely it is for Pro to be true. "
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
We both agree by this statement you made. The statements you make are in quotes.
As I have stated, if guns have never existed, then the removal of those are simply impossible to define, so this case is outside the consideration for this topic. You can't consider the consequences of removing cars in a world without cars, just like you can't expect a single defined answer when you divide by zero.

Note that 5 rounds has passed, and Pro has never attempted to even justify his interpretation of the problem in which "all destruction must be removed" through any logical proof or even any backings from definitions. Such interpretation should still be considered either baseless or less "based" than mine, due to mine is based on definitions that Pro has not disproven, and in fact refused to take any remarks on. As such, my interpretation stands still.
I don't even know what that means, let alone claimed that as my position.
“Because I don't know what that is, therefore it must be wrong!" That was Pro's response to my argument, and Pro attempted to justify his lack of proof against my definition barebone foundation. That, obviously, does not automatically render my foundation wrong, and Pro has no proof against me, therefore, it should be considered still standing. Keep in mind, as early as R1 I have interpreted the resolution using reasonable reasoning according to the definitions that determine what the words in the topics mean, and as of R5 there has been NO quotes from definitions nor even justifiable and solid proofs from Pro of saying why his interpretation is justified. All attempted proofs, if you can call it that even, of that, has been disproven by me in previous rounds.

Guns against human destruction. I don't follow that. Going against human destruction, does that mean stopping destruction?
Stopping is just the most extreme possibility in terms of what ”against" means. In definition terms undisproven in this debate, any reduction in destruction results in successful opposition and “against", just like how resistors oppose current while not necessarily bringing it down to zero. The state of there still being human destruction and the net reduction of net destruction are not mutually exclusive, as explained before.

So far, I have presented proof how utterly unlikely the removal of all guns will NOT reduce net destruction, and Pro has never even tried to present proof that the removal of guns does not reduce net destruction, due to him always using a framework that has not been grounded with solidified methods.

You stated so yourself that without guns, if guns did not exist, there still be something else. Something else like what?
You omitted what'd it be in its place as an alternate use for destruction.
I doubt fists, daggers, bombs, grenades or even missiles can kill people with efficiency of guns due to none of them are both as affordable and efficient as firearms. Pro has yet to give any one source of destruction more net efficient than guns that will result in all the destruction that could have been caused by guns compensated by something else, resulting in net non-reduction of destruction.

That description is supposed to clarify. Then you can ask questions about the description.
It is not a must-do though. The fault of a not-clear-enough description falls entirely on the instigator due to that when instigating the debate, they ought to be able to begin the debate as early as they post it, or that is how the software is designed to be. If the description is (as proven to be) of a completely different and unsupported foundation of arguments, then it can just be assumed that the description is barely related to the debate itself at all.

People say I didn't do this and that or didn't make this clear. I never gave definitions or whatever. If you guys don't get in the question mode, expect continuous problems.
Despite that, Pro's foundation was neither clear nor solidly backed. Pro refusing to clarify further or refusing to use definitions, the burden of that is purely on Pro due to him instigating this debate and making this debate and not clarifying and backing when he clearly could.

Conclusion
  • Guns consists most deaths in civil violence and are so heavily-dependent on by modern warfare that the removal of them possibly cause a net decrease in total destruction, and proof states that small-scale gun-bannings really DID reduce destruction.
  • Pro has presented no counterproof to that.
  • Con's foundation to his argument is arguably and noticeably more solid-grounded than Pro's, and Pro even refused to justify why his interpretation is right.
  • Overall, I advise voters to vote CON.
That sums up the whole debate. Thank you for reading.