Instigator / Con
10
1520
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#600

Should America ban the AR-15

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

dustryder
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1535
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description

Many people claim the the AR-15 is a dangerous gun and should be banned in order to recuce the amount of mass shootings. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic carbine style rifle. A large amount of the people who support banning the gun get that statement wrong. I am against the ban as I do not see any strong reason to authorise a ban on this firearm.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Welcome to both of you! I will wrap a little feedback into my RfD for your benefit. I will include (FB) when the note is for feedback and not part of my RfD

Arguments

R1
Cons primary argument is that the AR15 is little different than many other weapons, and does have other uses.

Pros starting argument is that the AR-15 is particularly used in a lot of mass shootings, and it’s effectiveness at killing people. Pro makes the case that other weapons can be used for legitimate roles that the AR-15 is currently used for.

So far, this undermines pros point on legitimate use, and shows a specific harm that warrants a ban.

R2:

Con points out that most gun deaths are not AR-15s and this I feel undermined pros argument from how widely it is used.

I did not feel cons argument that just because it is effective doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be bad. First it appears to concede that it’s more effective than other weapons, and it ignores that pros argument isn’t effectiveness - but effectiveness at killing people that is at issue.

Pros hammers home his point that the legitimate usages of the gun can be replaced with other guns. He argues that if the gun con cites is just as dangerous - it should be banned too - I felt this was particularly good (FB: Con left himself open to this attack by talking solely about the AR-15 remember the ban pro must support could be larger than AR-15. Pro could have also argued for a broader and wider ban if he had desired.)

(FB Note: this felt mostly like a rehash of R1 by pro - I think okay to rebut immediately preceding arguments in this type of policy debate unless otherwise stated. It makes for a nicer flow)

R3:

Con continues to hammer the usage of the AR-15 claiming it’s not used in most mass shootings, he also asks about other weapons to be banned - how many should be banned?

I don’t find slippery slopes particularly good arguments, but con does point out the potential issues with where you draw the line.

Pro points out deaths in Las Vegas and effectiveness of the weapon, and mostly reiterates the previous rounds, on points I have already mostly discounted.

What pro doesn’t do, is argue an effective case as to what impact banning the gun would have. This is important as pro has to convince me that there is benefit to banning the gun.

In my view pro gets me most of the way there by stressing the particular effectiveness, and how good it as killing - together with negating the possible downsides.

At this point, though, cons argument that pro didn’t counter is that a ban won’t have any benefit. However - pros main argument that con didn’t counter is that there isn’t really any harm.

Pro was in the better position to win here, but didn’t really address pros final concerns head on (banning all weapons).

Because of this I both sides pulled me in their direction - but neither pulled me far enough to their side to award a win.

Thus, arguments are tied.

Sources:

Pro makes good use of sources to boost his warrant. The guns and ammo link, and global news link confirm the main crux of his argument which in my view put these out of the realm of contention. His mass shooting ar15 links from USA today in round 1 were particularly good. This is a good usage of links to prove that what you’re saying is true, and made it harder for con to contest the basics - as a result I felt pros sources bolstered his warrant on key points.

Con on the other hand did not offer sources.

Sources to pro.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

First- it is nice to see some new people debating. Second- I admire the quick, concise, easy-to-digest nature of this debate- bullet-points, counters, done. I'd like to see more debates from both participants.

Con identifies a genuine benefit (less mass shootings) and argues that the suggested policy will not achieve that benefit because the policy focuses on one unremarkable type of rifle.

Pro takes two approaches to this argument that undermine each other: AR-15 are sufficiently unremarkable that their functionality may be easily replaced by other weapons but also AR-15s are more common to mass shootings and more lethal than handguns. In R1, Pro argues that AR-15s main harm is perception, in R2, lethality. At the end of R2, Pro concedes that other gun types are more are lethal and argues that perhaps more gun types should be banned- essentially conceding that AR-15s do not merit special legislation. In R3, Pro argues that Con's perception argument is unsubstantiated, undermining his opening argument ("Many experts have speculated that this is due to the perception....").

Con's slippery slope in R3 doesn't help the case, but Con essentially wins this argument by concession.

Con also argues that AR-15s are effective for legal purposes- sport, home defense. Pro counters that AR-15s are overpowered for such purposes and that the costs in lives outweigh the benefits of sport and home defense. Con makes no counter to this argument except to say effectiveness alone is no cause for ban. Pro wins this argument.

Neither side presented a particularly formidable case (it was a short debate, after all) but Con wins the edge on overall arguments because Con did not undermine his own argument. Much of the debate hinged on what singles out AR-15s for banning and Pro needed a more direct response. If Pro had set out a stronger argument for increased AR-15 lethality, I think Pro wins this debate.

Sources to Pro. Although Pro's sources were relatively weak (there are good govt. and scientific papers on this topic), Con desperately need some sources. Con had way better statistics but killed the effect by failure to source- AR-15 facts, Steven Crowder, 60% of mass shootings hand guns, etc. The lack of sources weakens readers confidence in those stats considerably: if handguns do 80% of killing but also kill 19 times more than rifles, what guns are killing the other 15%? Con seemed to have better research but failed to show the work.

Spelling & Conduct fine. I'm an American who curses the 2nd Amendment's impact on my society regularly so my bias would tend to Pro. Nevertheless, I think Con maintained the slight advantage in this debate.