The Right To Bear Arms vs Gun Control
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
On-balance debate.
Pro argues everyone should have the right to purchase firearms, Con can argue to either ban all guns or push for tighter gun control. (Con has two positions he can choose between in the first round.)
Both sides must give reasons for their position and attack the opponent's points.
The description says Con is allowed to advocate for tighter gun control than the status quo. So Pro’s claim in R2 seems disingenuous to me, as if Con proves gun control should be tighter than it is right now, Con wins -- and I’m not sure why the words “on balance” in the resolution change that. That said, I don’t see why Con’s shell works; I don’t buy Con’s claim that my remedy should be to give Pro the loss because they broke the rules. My remedy is just to force Pro to abide by the rules; I’m generally hesitant to vote on theory arguments of this sort, and I don’t think Con explains why the only or best way to deter future violations is to vote Con.
Con argues that you disempower criminals, by denying them access to guns. I don’t think Con quite proves that there are ~485,000 fewer violent crimes in their world (as people could just use black market guns, or use alternatives to guns), but I buy that gun-related crimes are more common than the self-defense cases Pro names, thus outweighing self-defense. Guns being less attainable to stop crimes is also a better-explained mechanism than Pro’s claim about deterrence, which is largely a bare assertion, especially as Con points out that, without proper training, good samaritans and people engaging in self-defense might not be able to fight off a criminal. Finally, I don’t buy Pro’s tyranny claim, both due to Con’s impact turn (that sometimes, encouraging people to fight governments is bad), and because Pro doesn’t show that guns are sufficient to successfully fight tyrannical states. In general, Con advocates a series of regulations, and is fairly clear about how they’d work to attain these impacts -- the simplest ballot is that banning handguns would probably heavily mitigate the harms Con identifies, without suffering much of the disadvantages Pro names (given Con’s answers).
My main piece of feedback would be to warrant arguments better. A dropped argument is a concession if, and only if, the argument was warranted properly in the first place -- and at many points in this debate, there was either a brief mention of a claim without justification or explanation, a statistic without an analytical explanation, or an analytic without real-world evidence, and all of those could substantially weaken an argument.
Why did you tag me?
I only gave the debate some sort of half assed read and just saw one thing that sparked my attention when reading it. I am in no place to judge and the topic is not that interesting to me
Does the preamble stuff in my Round 2 speech make sense? I know Sir forfeited, so I'm not worried, just curious for other rounds.
I think I get your strategy now
I was hoping I'd at least get one answer from you.
I don't have to prove that no bad governments exist. I said that as a reason that we shouldn't arm citizens. If Sir.Lancelot puts our Nazi Germany, then I answer the warrant, but only in the context of the resolution. Also, for better or worse, there is an incentive in debate to put out the most ambitious version of an argument first. If it's dropped, you get that version. If it's not, you have the rest of the debate to clarify and nuance it. Also, I have two points, the one you said I should start with, and then the other one. You should have one piece of offense and defense on each argument at least. That's my offense.
I think your argument was zero bad governments exist but both your points are incorrect.
The Nazis got most of their weapons in the beer hall putsch through armories.
They disarmed 6 million Jews and killed them. Maybe it would have been 3 million if they could offer armed resistance, but that also misses the point that a lot of armed citizens could simply move to the country and unless you are going to send a war time military after them it would be pretty easy for them to live in peace.
Your other point about their enemy nations is beside the point as well. It only mitigates the effectiveness of an armed population not eliminates is and in America for example if 10% of citizens picked up arms against the government any allies of the rebels would have 30 million additional guns on their side.
None of that matters though, because your premises isn't that armed citizenry can't be effective against a tyrannical government. Your premises was that zero bad governments so or ever will exist.
I was curious about how you would handle it. Me personally if I through our a point like that it would be to just make my opponent waste space, now it looks like you are claiming you would waste space as well by instead of supporting your premise that bad governments don't exist you will throw out red herrings.
Those red herrings may be arguments against the 2nd amendment, but they don't support the premise and of "no bad governments exist" . It seems like you would be better off just immediately arguing that point you made in the last post, instead of waiting for them to disprove your premise.
Characters willing, I would argue these points
1. The fact that the Nazis were defeated by the Allies and not their own citizenry proves that citizens can't fight against tyranny. Winning bad governments exist isn't enough, Pro has to win that they can be defeated by armed citizens without foreign aid.
2. The Nazis took power through armed action that bullied themselves into the polls, bringing and end to the Weimar Republic. A society with no guns wouldn't have been bullied as such, so the offense still stands that armed citizens cause human rights violations.
So if he brought up Nazi Germany as a harmful state would you drop the argument or defend your stance?
Lol,
I was wondering if that was what you were doing. I have used something similar
I forgot about this debate and received a notif that I was running out of time while I was working on a response for a separate one.
It forces him to give examples, and I can then beat him in the examples. My argument doesn't have to be true, just has to be won.
Why didn't you give some rebuttals that round 2?
"Government good. Sir.Lancelot has no example of a harmful state. States provide security and equality, and armed citizens stand in the way of that."
Correct zero examples of a bad government or a good government turning bad exist. Chack mate.
Dude normally I would not comment but why even after that argument LOL.
No regulation.
Wait, so is the pro defending the status quo on gun control, or a world with no regulation?