Instigator / Pro
14
1439
rating
13
debates
38.46%
won
Topic
#6315
Gun Rights in the USA
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
11
1494
rating
9
debates
50.0%
won
Description
America is well known for having a large amount of gun ownership and culture.
Some people are rather Anti-Gun.
Con in this debate would be taking the side of people more Anti Gun, than Gun Regulation.
Sure, one can call a country that only allows civilians to own guns for hunting sport shooting, to be 'Regulating guns, but that seems more 'technical, than common sense, to me.
Round 1
Pro
#1
My thanks to my opponent, for accepting this debate.
HISTORY
It's quite probable you're aware of early American history, But my retelling it helps me focus my argument.
The American colonies were founded where and when there were a lot of wild animals that we often needed to hunt for food, And other times defend ourselves from arrow proof grizzly bears bringing death "With nasty big pointy teeth!"
There were 'countless bloody conflicts with the Native Americans spanning 'centuries of colonists and settlers expansion into North America.
When the American Revolution first began Americans used the weapons from their state's militia stores and homes.
As America expanded into the west, Great stretches land lawless were had, In which individuals needed to protect themselves and the community around them.
WHY HISTORY?
Because I want to illustrate my view on what 'value I think Americans hold guns.
The right's of individual freedom, Of responsibility, A tradition going back as far as when the first latchet shoed pilgrim stepped onto the shore of Plymouth.
Now, I 'realize that 'Tradition as a Value, Is not alone enough to validate a way of life.
It's 'mix, Of Motivations, Goals, Values.
Mao Zedong, Of China said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. "
Certainly, For Americans, It was by guns, By rabbles of individuals in arms that we achieved our freedom. Many of us have 'never forgotten that, 'And are not 'eager to let the Government disarm us and attain a monopoly upon violence.
YE OLD RESISTENCE OF TYRANICAL GOVERMENT ARGUEMENT
I'm 'sure you've heard the tired old argument of totalitarian regime disarming populations.
And I'm sure some people consider this a pointless tired argument, And others the 'objections to it, A pointless tired argument. But it's an argument I'm sure many recognize.
The naysayers to this argument, Ridicule the comparison between a civilian and the military. Mock it as pistol vs Jetplane. But do you think our troops in the Middle East consider the IEDs, The paramilitary rebels in Iraq 'nothing?
The Vietcong?
Were the many resistance groups against the axis in WW2 'nothing?
It's my thinking, That people who disregard this argument, Underestimate the capability of humans. Capability that is severely diminished, Though not necessarily absent without firearms.
Moreover I argue,
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. " William Pitt 'the Elder
When government is able to do as 'it see's fit, Without concern of the populace's ability to resist, Why must it listen to the populace or limit 'it's interest around 'theirs?
I 'don't think 'every government is going to sweet Dr Jekyl face de-arm it's population, Then rotten Mr Hyde face declare a totalitarian regime.
Many countries people's live in freedom and happiness without guns. Currently.
But historically, It's 'not a positive sign.
It's not an 'instant dictatorship drop.
But it's a people removing a tool from their toolbox, A means by which people assert their liberty.
RIGHT, PRIVLEDGE, AND DUTY
A gun is a contractual 'Right of our Constitution, A 'Privilege that can be lost by crime or mental failing. A moral duty to oneself, Family, Community, And country.
An American must not be simply 'deserving, They must be 'worthy of that privilege.
For a population to disarm itself, To declare itself 'unworthy. In it's future, Would one not expect less in all matters, From such a populace?
NEED, COMPARISON, AND REGULATION
A car, A chainsaw, Alcohol.
Are these 'Needs, Well if the government provided better public transportation, If a man can call a licensed professional to cut a tree, If water is available to drink, What 'Need?
"An estimated 40,990 lives were lost in traffic crashes in the U.S. in 2023" on U. S. Roadways.
"Each year over 3 million new chainsaws are sold in the United States. The operation of these newer saws combined with the millions of older chainsaws in circulation results in over 28, 000 chainsaw-related injures annually. "
"An estimated 95,000 people (approximately 68,000 men and 27,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually,15 making alcohol the third-leading preventable cause of death in the United States."
If the police are ever at one's beck and call, What need of guns?
But the police are 'not I say.
"Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates for the United States are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. "
"Suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2023, 58% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (27,300), while 38% were murders (17,927). The remaining gun deaths that year involved law enforcement (604), were accidental (463) or had undetermined circumstances (434), according to CDC data."
"Chart of the day: More guns, Less gun violence between 1993 and 2013"
"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation, passed in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[36]
In 2001, violent crime rates were about 60% below national and state rates."
LA Riots 1992
"Because they weren't getting adequate protection from the police, The Korean shop owners basically took matters into their own hands and armed themselves in an attempt to defend their shops. Since many of these Koreans were in the Korean military prior to immigrating, They were certainly capable of using firearms and from what I'm told, Often used their training to coordinate their efforts with other Koreans in the community. "
Source, Google, Reddit User SendEldritchHorrors
People 'die for 'needless luxuries. But taking away people's right to self defense is more important?
WHAT ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES
What I 'hear about Britain, Is that their crimes and deaths did not go down much really when you got rid of guns. Gun deaths maybe. But I'm sure the criminals kept their guns, Or simply delighted that it would be all the easier to intimidate others with no fear of an equalizer.
'Dogs I've heard, Some criminals use.
"Fewer Guns, Less Crime? Not in Europe"
"Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, When a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, Killing 14 people and then himself.
The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8. 3 million people. In 2016, The country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. "
I'm 'sure anti gun activists have many statistics and graphs arguing the other side of this debate, But my point with mine is not purely to say, Look at statistics, And be convinced.
But to say how 'confusing statistics can be.
How different countries have different variables, Ranging from what effects what the statistics are measured, To the measuring of the statistics themselves.
NEED AGAIN
Riots, Famines, Snowstorms, Floods, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Storms, Mudslides, Civil war, Invasion, A sun flare.
Things go bad, Eventually 'something happens somewhere.
Guns are useful for hunting, Useful for self defense, Useful for 'survival in the darkest of times.
Con
#2
Pro presents a largely philosophical argument for persuasion, however I aim to logically dismantle points with a practical viewpoint.
"The American colonies were founded where and when there were a lot of wild animals that we often needed to hunt for food, And other times defend ourselves from arrow proof grizzly bears bringing death "With nasty big pointy teeth!"
There were 'countless bloody conflicts with the Native Americans spanning 'centuries of colonists and settlers expansion into North America."
"As America expanded into the west, Great stretches land lawless were had, In which individuals needed to protect themselves and the community around them."
While Pro has rightfully stated that guns were an essential tool in the survival of Early Americans, essential use in history should not permit current usage, especially when taking lethal weapons into account.
I could prepare a debate arguing that the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 should be abolished here in Ireland due to them "protecting against predators in early Irish development", and "therefore being core culture", but that would quite simply be absurd.
It's correct that when America expanded into the west, there was need for weapons for survival. But this concept is highly outdated with the present era having laws with penalties to keep society under control.
America has had a heavy culture in guns, this is heavily due to guns being permitted by rulers throughout generations, with families passing down weapons through each branch of bloodline. Entertainment such as wildwest movies and video games also highly contribute to the heavy gun culture.
But culture does not equate to correctness. My own place of origin, Pakistan, has a heavy culture of political corruption and sectarianism.
Does this culture make it right in any way to practice these things?
Pro tries to persuade the reader with examples from essential tools such as chainsaws, everyday vehicles such as cars, and substances such as alcohol.
The masked fault within this comparison is that guns are lethal weapons that are heavily used by criminals, and aggravated individuals to take lives.
Alcohol, cars and chainsaw do cause annual deaths, as with practically anything. These deaths by tools and vehicles are accidents, while guns are evidently used to aggressively take lives deliberately on large scales.
With the legalization of guns, America is seen to have dramatically higher rates of children being exposed to gun fire and gun violence.
Verified and credible source: https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/
"When it comes to how children in the US are exposed to gun violence, gunfire at schools is just the tip of the iceberg—every year, more than 4,300 children and teens are shot and killed1 and over 17,000 more are shot and wounded.2 An estimated 3 million children in the US are exposed to shootings per year.3 Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens.4 Witnessing shootings—whether in their schools, their communities, or their homes—can have a devastating impact. Children exposed to violence, crime, and abuse are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol; suffer from depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder; fail or have difficulties in school; and engage in criminal activity."
Are these the types of conditions that you would like your children to live in?
Are these the types of conditions that you would want them going to school?
Would you want your kids being exposed to this sort of behavior?
I wouldn't say so.
Using Britain as a comparison of violence with absence of guns is cherry picking.
I could argue that Jamaica has practically no guns but high crime rates when comparing the country to Brazil, which has guns.
But that would be absurd. Why you may ask? Because circumstances and cultures in each country differ.
"Riots, Famines, Snowstorms, Floods, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Storms, Mudslides, Civil war, Invasion, A sun flare.
Things go bad, Eventually 'something happens somewhere.
Guns are useful for hunting, Useful for self defense, Useful for 'survival in the darkest of times."
The time for the essential need for guns as a tool within hunting is long gone.
If hunting as a sport is taken into account, that scenario highly differs. As even some of the safest countries within Europe such as Ireland allow firearms for hunting with extremely strict weapon laws. With these laws, along with the lower population, there is an extremely low amount of individuals in Ireland with ownership of firearms. This is different from even regulating firearms within America.
"YE OLD RESISTENCE OF TYRANICAL GOVERMENT ARGUEMENT"
This argument is invalid.
In a hypothetical situation where there is heavy political corruption and individuals are led to "resist with fire arms", as absurd as it sounds.
The government is equipped with much more than just fire arms, they have "Jetplanes" as you call it, but most notably over 1 million trained killers in various fields with top of the line lethal artillery, armored vehicles, infantry weapons, bombs, etc.
The absurdity of this hypothetical situation argues Pro's point itself.
"An American must not be simply 'deserving, They must be 'worthy of that privilege.
For a population to disarm itself, To declare itself 'unworthy. In it's future, Would one not expect less in all matters, From such a populace?"
This line containing a hint of hyperbole is practically inadequate.
Keeping society in check by means of removing lethal weapons which are leading causes of killings each year is not deeming society as "unworthy".
It's keeping society safe.
Bombs are illegal in most countries, does this mean that society is "unworthy" of them?
The harvesting and wearing of certain animal materials is illegal in many countries, does that make society "unworthy" of these materials?
If you keep your son from committing his time to bad company, is he "unworthy" of that group?
Of each of these questions, most individual answers would be "no" for logically and practically valid reasons.
"But it's a people removing a tool from their toolbox, A means by which people assert their liberty."
Removing lethal weapons from society which evidently lead to high killings of innocent fathers, mothers, daughters, sons and relatives is not "removing a tool from their tool box". This leads back to my point that removing weapons from society is care for society, and that the need for lethal weapons as "a tool" is highly outdated. "Asserting liberty" should not be at the cost of innocent lives.
Round 2
Pro
#3
HISTORY
It was the militias and the 'individuals of America, 'Their blood, Money, Lives, And 'Guns that fought Britain. That formed the Continental Army. That manned privateers, Citizens that 'owned 'their cannons and made battle with the British upon the high seas.
Who when asked for surrender positively 'roared,
"I have not yet begun to fight! " - John Paul Jones
And 'so 'long as we assert our rights, we shall keep them.
RIGHT TO THE 'ABILITY TO REBEL
Even today, I view America much as a nation with an 'unusually large emphasis on Freedom.
And though immediate and 'obvious dangers such as wildlife and hostile nearby nations have been eliminated.
'Never I say, are we without the Need 'and Right to the 'Ability rebel, if we are afflicted by tyrants.
"BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD TREE!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD TREE!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOOOOD TRRRREEEEEE!
BLLLLEEERHRHRHRHRG! "
Er, Wait, Wrong quote, That's a Warhammer reference.
Quote I 'meant to use is this,
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " - Thomas Jefferson
Which in my interpretation means that at times, Tyrants are going to occur in a nations history.
Can it 'really think that unjust governments, Tyrants are a notion of the past, That they cannot occur in the modern era?
THE LEGALITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND VIOLENCE
List of countries by intentional homicide rate
Mexico is 18th, America 65th
"Another month, Another record number of murders in Mexico. For the first nine months of 2019, Mexico had 25, 890 murders, almost six times as many murders per 100, 000 people as in the U. S. Does Mexico need stricter gun control?
No. Its gun laws are among the least permissive in the world. For decades Mexico has had only one gun store in the entire country, A military-run establishment in Mexico City. The store"s prices are very expensive, And the most powerful rifle that you can buy there is a. 22 caliber. There's no "gun-show loophole" any person-to-person firearm transfers are illegal without an "extraordinary" permit that never seems to be issued. One may sell a gun only to the government, And then the government has to decide to sell it to someone else.
Getting permission to purchase a gun is a feat in itself. Background checks take six months to complete and require fingerprints and an evaluation of the buyer"s employment history. Only 1% of Mexicans possess a license to own a firearm. "
Then compare Switzerland
"The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8. 3 million people. In 2016, The country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. "
I assert that it is not the 'guns in 'themselves, that is the cause of individuals 'malfunctions.
I have heard it said,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, Damned lies, And statistics. " - Unknown
Even 'when children are shot and killed, exposed to guns, is it the fault of 'guns? or 'Culture?
Some 'aspects of American culture, might be good to change, yes.
But many of us Americans believe that,
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, To purchase a little temporary Safety, Deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " - Benjamin Franklin
ON VIOLENCE AND CONFLICT
Violence, Conflict, Inherent in humanity, I assert.
Humanity will 'always need weapons.
It would not have mattered during the American Civil War if it had been guns, Spears, Or rocks.
I'm sure you don't mean to imply that before firearms were invented, People got along swimmingly, 'Never killed one another, Nor threatened violence by mean of arms.
Intimidation would have occurred.
Many of we Americans 'are proud of our constitution and state.
One of the reasons for this is gun rights.
Of recognition of the citizen, The individual, the responsibility and power they hold.
The 'people, Well armed, Are another of the 'checks that exist within our system. Less we go the way of any of these 'states.
PROTECTION AND VIOLENCE INHERENT IN STATES
US school system shootings 'are concerning, And perhaps we 'could be doing better.
It 'would be good if more people chose to take classes to learn how to use guns properly, Safely, How to avoid unnecessary conflict.
If communities and individuals reached out to 'troubled members in their community, 'before they became a 'problem.
If any who sold guns to a person who ought not have one, Is held accountable.
If gun safe were more common.
If people upset by shootings were arguing and 'acting for 'voluntary community involvement in learning how to use guns responsibly, Safely. I would not be bothered.
Organizations such as the Boy Scouts exist, Yet people are so eager to turn to the government, And subserviently beg the government to disarm them, To take away their own sense of self regulation and responsibility.
The Self-Image of the USA has been there since the beginning.
Independence, Self determination, Self worth.
"Masters of our fates, Captains of our souls" as William Ernest Henley a British poet might say.
To help me understand this,
Can you explain to me 'why current mass shootings are seen as 'crisis?
Are people upset by how 'many people die, Or are they upset by the 'concept of 'scary homicide using guns?
I refer you to the statistics in Round 1,
'Many 'more people die unrelated to mass shootings, Die of homicide, Suicide, Accident, Die from self indulgent pleasure such as alcohol and cigarettes. Than 'of mass shootings.
'Why remove 'Rights of Americans, That are 'instrumental to our Liberty and Safety?
PROTECTION FROM THE GOVERMENT
I have a whole page of quotes by our Founding Fathers regarding the 2nd Amendment
We may have jets in Modern America, but they cannot be 'everywhere, armies are fed by supply lines, by popular support.
The easiest type of civilian to brush aside, is one unarmed.
Sub'servient to the 'state.
If America's people have the Right and Ability to rise, then the military is greatly effected.
Both in supply lines, that they cannot 'all defend, and in the soldiers, who see a free people, 'their people. 'Willing to fight.
Not that we need any revolution 'currently, or in any 'expected near future, but one never knows.
Some Responses
I 'appreciate sectarianism, though one needs be careful not to be short sighted, or go about one's loyalty in ways that 'harm one's people.
Corruption, not so much, 'far too flawed and self damaging by it's effects.
I do agree that tradition is not 'almighty in it's importance, but values. . .
Values. . .Are a funny thing.
At times, I think they cannot be taken for anything but for what they are.
The Value becomes the End.
Though I 'admit Values at times 'clash with other Values, and are lost.
For 'now, in 'America, Civilian Guns, and what they represent, are still a strong value.
Even if their value was lost in Ireland.
I don't want children to live in bad circumstances, or with trauma, but I am less disposed to let potential future Americans lose their freedom.
We can do better for our children, without giving up our Freedoms and Responsibilities.
Heavy load at times to some, or not.
Circumstances and cultures in countries 'do differ at times, all I can do is 'attempt look for 'what differs.
I do not think it 'needs be our guns.
Many of us Americans do not hunt animals, it is true,
But I disdain dependence upon the Federal Government,
Esteem preppers and cities able to care for themselves, should disaster arise.
Who never let their Will and Ability in such, atrophy.
I 'do consider restrictions on citizens in the matter of bombs and The harvesting and wearing of certain animal materials, to imply unworthiness.
Because such laws are often made when citizens become careless and greedy.
But I see the 'greater unworthiness, in 'accepting such restrictions.
People who light fireworks at inappropriate times, should be held accountable, not the law abiding citizen punished.
People who hunt animals out of season or law, should be held accountable, not the law abiding citizen punished.
Of one's son spending time with bad company, well I don't think he's unworthy of them, no.
Peers have an effect on people, probably better not to spend time with people who's habits are disagreeable to oneself.
For it has a way of seeping in.
Liberty, is always at the cost of innocent lives.
All the more when people 'forget their responsibilities, individual, and community 'power.
School shooters,
Fire, Brains, and Will,
Would be more dangerous to the population at large than 'guns.
But school shooters, are ever
Confused and Suicidal, lashing out in brief homicidal tantrum at those who did them no harm.
Unwilling to face and stand up to life.
There are more dangerous means than guns they 'could use.
Fire for example, andis hardly something we can regulate.
Con
#4
"It was the militias and the 'individuals of America, 'Their blood, Money, Lives, And 'Guns that fought Britain. That formed the Continental Army. That manned privateers, Citizens that 'owned 'their cannons and made battle with the British upon the high seas.
Who when asked for surrender positively 'roared,
"I have not yet begun to fight! " - John Paul Jones"
"Even today, I view America much as a nation with an 'unusually large emphasis on Freedom.
And though immediate and 'obvious dangers such as wildlife and hostile nearby nations have been eliminated.
'Never I say, are we without the Need 'and Right to the 'Ability rebel, if we are afflicted by tyrants."
"BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD TREE!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD TREE!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOOOOD TRRRREEEEEE!
BLLLLEEERHRHRHRHRG! "
Er, Wait, Wrong quote, That's a Warhammer reference.
Quote I 'meant to use is this,
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " - Thomas Jefferson"
"The Self-Image of the USA has been there since the beginning.
Independence, Self determination, Self worth.
"Masters of our fates, Captains of our souls" as William Ernest Henley a British poet might say."
These sets of paragraphs are nothing but nationalistic ramble, they raise no points to combat my argument or strengthen Pro's stance.
I would strongly advise Pro to take a step back from using outdated philosophical quotes (from late 1700s) for argument, along stepping away from executing use of Warhammer references and then claiming to mistakenly add it.
To make this a debate worth engaging in, for the audience and especially your opponent, argue to defend your stance rather than playing an act.
Furthermore, Pro provides source - Gun Quotes From 20 Of America's Founding Fathers - 2nd Amendment
This source provides no solidified evidence to your stance, only patriotic quotes from recognized figures which may very possibly include propaganda.
These quotes in particular are highly outdated with most of them being from approximately 300+ years ago, where slavery and political corruption was significantly more common.
"Tyrants are going to occur in a nations history."
"Can it 'really think that unjust governments, Tyrants are a notion of the past, That they cannot occur in the modern era?"
"Even today, I view America much as a nation with an 'unusually large emphasis on Freedom.
And though immediate and 'obvious dangers such as wildlife and hostile nearby nations have been eliminated.
'Never I say, are we without the Need 'and Right to the 'Ability rebel, if we are afflicted by tyrants."
There is no official record of tyrannical rule in the national history in America, not that there may have been abuse in much older eras.
I have already dismantled this sort of argument by combating Pro's, "YE OLD RESISTANCE OF TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT".
(Which has not been opposed).
Pro has again cherry picked his selection for countries with restricted fire arms, to compare to American rates of gun violence.
Mexico cannot be compared to America nor Switzerland, as there is considerably more political corruption, poverty, lack of social welfare access, smuggling of contraband, weaker constitutional laws, etc. There is also significant amounts of gangs, and gang related violence.
"Organised crime groups in Mexico have about 175,000 members – making them the fifth-biggest employer in the country, according to new research published in the journal Science."
"The number of homicides in Mexico more than tripled between 2007 and 2021 – when the government reported 34,000 victims, or nearly 27 victims for every 100,000 inhabitants – making it one of the deadliest countries in Latin America."
Even though there may be, "restrictive laws", upon weapons within Mexico. There is an immense amount of other heinous crimes, which made it absurd to compare to America and Switzerland in practically any way.
This leads back to my point that different cultures, political circumstances and economies differ from one another, and that one cannot merely cherry pick in desperation in order to make a points that ultimately lack relevance.
"I assert that it is not the 'guns in 'themselves, that is the cause of individuals 'malfunctions."
"Even 'when children are shot and killed, exposed to guns, is it the fault of 'guns? or 'Culture?"
I never claimed that, "the guns themselves", are the issue.
No lifeless object without a user is a danger to a population, it is rather the power that is being given to society through permitting firearms that can lead to mass killings.
For instance, nuclear weapons are not inherently a threat, but coupled with a user threatening to bomb a country, it is a massive threat.
"It 'would be good if more people chose to take classes to learn how to use guns properly, Safely, How to avoid unnecessary conflict.
If communities and individuals reached out to 'troubled members in their community, 'before they became a 'problem.
If any who sold guns to a person who ought not have one, Is held accountable.
If gun safe were more common."
While education is a valid sub solution, this does not eliminate the large scale issue of America globally being the top of all gun violence despite its development.
Allow me to provide educated speculation as Pro has for the vast majority of his arguments, without the educated part.
I have completed my primary education and am far in the process of completing my secondary education.
Through my much accumulated experience in education, I much often find that education alone is not enough to solve problems, especially when attempting to solve problems such as high rates of fire arm related killings.
In Ireland, it is compulsory to attend SPHE and CSPE classes for social, economic and lawful education/awareness. I find that a large majority of individuals are not willing to pay attention and absorb information.
This is not my experience alone, as through connecting with multiple individuals internationally, I am certain that this is largely the case globally.
With this definite knowledge, if a government imposes compulsory education for the public, I estimate that the majority will neglect this education.
For instance, even with the COVID 19 pandemic, vaccination hesitation was a leading factor to lack of compliance.
This vaccination hesitation was largely driven by government mistrust.
If a large fraction of the country cannot comply with government assistance in very critical times, why would it comply in less critical times?
Are people upset by how 'many people die, Or are they upset by the 'concept of 'scary homicide using guns?
People are not just upset, but traumatized and broken. This is not by the concept, but the reality of murders being more common in the country.
Killing of innocent individuals with families. Kids losing their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, relatives and friends. Parents losing their children.
These are all more common occurrences in the US.
How would you feel if you were brought news that you've lost your mother in a shooting?
How would you feel if you found that your son died in a school shooting?
This horrific imagery is the reality of many who live to see the present day.
"We may have jets in Modern America, but they cannot be 'everywhere, armies are fed by supply lines, by popular support.
The easiest type of civilian to brush aside, is one unarmed."
Armies are in fact fed by the government's budget, which purchases supply lines.
One could argue that the easier citizen to brush aside would be one unarmed as opposed to armed which is correct, however, this comparison does not strengthen Pro's stance.
If one is armed with a firearm and a trained police force comes to arrest him, there logically wouldn't be any chance of successful defense.
Another immense issue is that owning guns for the purpose of opposing perceived "tyranny", is a severely dangerous way to hold its purpose.
“I don't want children to live in bad circumstances, or with trauma, but I am less disposed to let potential future Americans lose their freedom.
We can do better for our children, without giving up our Freedoms and Responsibilities.
Heavy load at times to some, or not.”
This paragraph leads back to my previous points that freedom at the cost of human life and sanity is not acceptable.
The point is not that you can’t do better for your children without the absence of guns.
The fact of the matter is that widespread access to firearms exposes children to unsafe, and often life threatening conditions when taking statistics into account.
I cite my previously used source as an example. (Which has not been opposed)
Verified and credible source: https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/
"When it comes to how children in the US are exposed to gun violence, gunfire at schools is just the tip of the iceberg—every year, more than 4,300 children and teens are shot and killed1 and over 17,000 more are shot and wounded.2 An estimated 3 million children in the US are exposed to shootings per year.3 Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens.4 Witnessing shootings—whether in their schools, their communities, or their homes—can have a devastating impact. Children exposed to violence, crime, and abuse are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol; suffer from depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder; fail or have difficulties in school; and engage in criminal activity."
Human nature is imperfect, which often leads to wrong decisions
Widely permitting the responsibility of obtaining lethal weapons for, “self defense”, is beyond a public danger.
“For 'now, in 'America, Civilian Guns, and what they represent, are still a strong value.
Even if their value was lost in Ireland.”
Values = principles or standards of behavior that an individual or group considers important and desirable, guiding their attitudes, decisions, and actions.
Taking the definition of values into account, having lethal weapons guide attitudes, decisions and actions is immensely dangerous.
Having values be through the barrel of a gun is the reason many mass killings occur.
The value of guns are not lost in Ireland, they are quite simply not relevant.
Ireland is one of the safest countries in Europe, one of the main reasons being that Ireland has maintained very strict policies in regard to violence and especially lethal weapons such as guns.
“Circumstances and cultures in countries 'do differ at times, all I can do is 'attempt look for 'what differs.
I do not think it 'needs be our guns.”
Respectfully, what Pro, “thinks”, in this case is not relevant.
The statistics very evidently show that America is topped globally as a hub for gun violence.
I see many people in my own country fearing immigrating, or even studying in America due to its much more frequent gun violence.
“Many of us Americans do not hunt animals, it is true,
But I disdain dependence upon the Federal Government,
Esteem preppers and cities able to care for themselves, should disaster arise.
Who never let their Will and Ability in such, atrophy.”
Federal government = A system of government in which power is divided between a central (national) authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces), allowing each level to have certain exclusive powers. The federal government is responsible for national matters, while regional governments handle local issues.
The economy is shaped by the federal government.
This system handles all defense, national security, foreign relations, printing money, immigration rules, etc.
Pro, “distains”, dependence upon the federal government, but little does he know that he will always be dependent upon the federal government.
“I 'do consider restrictions on citizens in the matter of bombs and The harvesting and wearing of certain animal materials, to imply unworthiness.
Because such laws are often made when citizens become careless and greedy.”
The harvesting and wearing of animal materials is more about safety, ethics, and conservation than about whether something is “worthy” or not.
This is similar to the case of weapons in the fact that weapons should not be as widely accessible due to safety concerns, as having lethal weapons be accessible to all citizens in a population of approximately 340 million individuals, is not only unethical but extremely dangerous. This is a hazard to public safety, and as mentioned before, is the leading factor that statistics often rank America as the top hub for gun violence.
"Liberty, is always at the cost of innocent lives."
"All the more when people 'forget their responsibilities, individual, and community 'power."
Liberty = state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
Liberty is not always, "at the cost of innocent lives."
Pro's claim, like many others, lacks basis of logic and evidence.
If a prisoner is granted liberty after serving his time and growing as a person, is it at a cost of innocent lives?
No. it is not.
Therefore liberty is not, "always at the cost of innocent lives".
Furthermore, restricting lethal weapons which lead to more frequent murders does not enable an individual to, "forget their responsibilities, individual, and community 'power."
This is yet another claim that lacks basis of logic.
“School shooters,
Fire, Brains, and Will,
Would be more dangerous to the population at large than 'guns.”
Pro evidently contradicts himself.
One cannot state that, “school shooters would be more dangerous to a population than guns”.
Having guns immensely accessible enables the opportunities for children to bring guns to school, hence dramatically more school shootings.
“There are more dangerous means than guns they 'could use.
Fire for example, andis hardly something we can regulate.”
Fire is a very absurd example to use in contrast to lethal weapons, as it cannot compare to the amount of innocent lives of citizens taken due to fire arms.
Fallacies used by Pro:
Argumentum ad Verecundiam = Using an authority figure’s opinion as evidence without proper basis.
Pro evidently uses this debate tactic significantly by citing quotes from famous figures from centuries in the past, and building arguments upon these quotes.
Appeal to Emotion = Using emotions rather than logical reasons to persuade.
Pro evidently uses this debate tactic through much philosophical and nationalistic argumentation. Much of which lacks a basic foundation of evidence and is commonly used for persuasion rather than fact.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Nothing but nationalistic ramble?
'Playing?
Nae, no, I would not say 'that.
Say rather 'EVOKING!
Upon this debate site, this stage!
Evoking 'values, for that is what emotion 'is, a 'highlighter of 'values.
Though there is 'argument there as well.
Reminder, that it 'was, 'Our Blood and Ideals, that we share with our revolutionary ancestors, Founders and Prime Value Highlighters of America.
It is 'reminder of what is 'Ours, then, 'and now, and to not let it free from our grasps.
Are we to let the feckless citizens among us, slip it from our hands?
Are we to let over legislating politicians, with a focus on monopolizing their power over the people, 'legislate it away from us?
Con's argument against "YE OLD RESISTANCE OF TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT". was addressed before even he made it,
"The naysayers to this argument, Ridicule the comparison between a civilian and the military. Mock it as pistol vs Jetplane. But do you think our troops in the Middle East consider the IEDs, The paramilitary rebels in Iraq 'nothing?
The Vietcong?
Were the many resistance groups against the axis in WW2 'nothing?
It's my thinking, That people who disregard this argument, Underestimate the capability of humans. Capability that is severely diminished, Though not necessarily absent without firearms." - Pro Round 1
The effectivity of small arms and motivated rebellions, are so obvious, it is enough to note them in passing. As one might not that rain wettens that which it touches.
HISTORY
Cherry picking countries to compare?
Well, one must start 'somewhere,
Besides, Mexico is an 'excellent country by which to compare the United States, Compare their founding's for instance.
Spain 'conquered many of the natives, but ruled 'more than they colonized with their own people. And had an 'interest in keeping them less armed.
"Spaniards saw the dense populations of Indigenous peoples as an important economic resource and the territory claimed as potentially producing great wealth for individual Spaniards and the crown."
"The Spanish royal government called its overseas possessions "The Indies" until its empire dissolved in the nineteenth century.
In the Caribbean, because there was no integrated indigenous civilization such as found in Mexico and Peru, there was no large-scale Spanish conquest of indigenous peoples, but there was indigenous resistance to Spanish colonization."
"In the nineteenth century, the enclave supplied guns to the rebellious Maya in the Caste War of Yucatan.[99]"
New Mexico
"In 1723 Juan Domingo de Bustamante took office and promptly issued new orders. He again banned the sale of horses and guns, to Indians and settlers."
"The relative scarcity of firearms in the southwest"
While 'Britain, and 'America has a 'far back history of Free Men being armed well.
We Americans have 'long been mindful of our rights in our Freedom, and how we 'keep them.
'Mexico 'disfranchised it's lawful citizens, leaving only the 'criminals to be easily armed.
"The right to keep and bear arms was first recognized as a constitutional right under Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution of 1857.[6] However, as part of the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed[7] where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: the right to keep (derecho a poseer in Spanish) and the right to bear (derecho a portar in Spanish).[8] The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance to police regulation.[9]"
Education
An excellent point by Con, we 'cannot rely on the 'Federal Government, forcefully educating the people.
But in our social and local 'movements educating the people.
"Until 1969 virtually every public high school—even in New York City—had a shooting club. High school students in New York City carried their guns to school on the subways in the morning, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach during the day, and retrieved them after school for target practice."
"We ought 'return to a culture of responsibility, and not being 'afraid of loud noises and the existence of violence. Not one that get's PTSD from shooting a gun.
"He said, "It felt to me like a bazooka—and sounded like a cannon." Kuntzman further described the experience by saying that "The recoil bruised my shoulder" and "The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick." Some consider the most controversial part of the article was when Kuntzman claimed, "The explosions—like a bomb—gave me a temporary form of PTSD".[5]"
School Shooters are more a social and cultural phenomenon, than one of guns.
Like serail killers or bell bottom pants, fads come and go, societies change.
But let us not give up a vital tool of our Freedom and Independence.
Are people upset by how 'many people die, Or are they upset by the 'concept of 'scary homicide using guns?
As I argued an sourced in round 1, more people die of various other causes of convenience and pleasure, than die from guns.
Sure I'd not enjoy losing a family member to a shooting, but I'd not cower from guns for that.
The easiest type of civilian to brush aside, is one unarmed.
“A government which does not trust its citizens to be armed is not itself to be trusted.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
People are exposed to what is available, and 'use what is available, if guns, then guns, if knives, then knives.
Values
Guns are 'tied to Independence, Freedom, Responsibility, and 'Keeping all of that.
Ireland 'itself gained independence by the gun, and has it's ''own appriciation of blood watered trees.
The Rose Tree
BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS
'O words are lightly spoken, '
Said Pearse to Connolly,
'Maybe a breath of politic words
Has withered our Rose Tree;
Or maybe but a wind that blows
Across the bitter sea. '
'It needs to be but watered, '
James Connolly replied,
'To make the green come out again
And spread on every side,
And shake the blossom from the bud
To be the garden's pride. '
'But where can we draw water, '
Said Pearse to Connolly,
'When all the wells are parched away?
O plain as plain can be
There's nothing but our own red blood
Can make a right Rose Tree. '
People talk of guns as the 'worst, and sure they make an obvious symptom of something that needs to change in society. But it 'isn't the guns. And pretense of 'guns of the problem, only allows disease to 'fester in a society.
Take switchblades, outlawed in many places, for 'fear of 'scary teenagers 'flicking blades.
Such government 'overreach of citizens rights!
'Pointless bloating of our legislation.
Federal Government
Locals, know their own business best.
'Ought be a community, capable and self independent.
Federal 'Aid, ever a giving of fish, than teaching to fish.
Restrictions on citizens
'Great citizens, are able to act as responsible adults.
Inferior nations, attempt to baby proof their countries, and remove 'any potential power or responsibility from their citizens. Leading of 'course, to a degregation of their sense of responsibility.
Liberty, is always at the cost of innocent lives.
The fact that the prisoner is given a second chance at liberty? Yes, not all change. And commit murder. But we 'accept such.
If we wanted only life, we'd let the government imprison us all, but man wants for more than 'just being alive.
There is a 'pause between School Shooters and Fire.
Implying a comparison between school shooters, and someone competent.
Blocking the exits and placing some fire in key locations, would kill far many people than a school shooter would with a gun.
Fallacies
Emotion isn't a fallacy, it's a highlight of value.
Nor is quoting a fallacy, again, a highlight, of obvious facts, in poetry.
. . . Also, quotes by Americans have additional value in their precident, of what such a country we Americans be a part of. Established and agreed to.
Con
#6
"Con's argument against "YE OLD RESISTANCE OF TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT". was addressed before even he made it,
"The naysayers to this argument, Ridicule the comparison between a civilian and the military. Mock it as pistol vs Jetplane. But do you think our troops in the Middle East consider the IEDs, The paramilitary rebels in Iraq 'nothing?
The Vietcong?
Were the many resistance groups against the axis in WW2 'nothing?
It's my thinking, That people who disregard this argument, Underestimate the capability of humans. Capability that is severely diminished, Though not necessarily absent without firearms." - Pro Round 1"
Let us be clear from the outset: the Pro’s “Ye Old Resistance of Tyrannical Government” argument is a sentimental indulgence masquerading as political reasoning. Cloaked in historical references and rhetorical swagger, it attempts to pre-empt criticism not by addressing it, but by romanticising its way around reality. This is not argumentation, it is historical cosplay. And it collapses the moment it’s examined with even minimal intellectual seriousness.
Pro attempts to draw a bold line from the Vietcong to modern American civilians, suggesting that the mere will to resist is enough to overcome a technologically superior force. This is a textbook case of historical misapplication. The Vietcong were not ragtag patriots with hunting rifles - they were a militarised, deeply organised force backed by global superpowers and supported by terrain and political momentum. The WWII resistance fighters Pro praises? Supported by full-scale Allied intelligence, weapon drops, and strategic coordination. Iraqi insurgents? Operating in the ruins of a destabilised state, often with external funding.
These are not relatable parallels for a scattered group of untrained civilians with AR-15s and internet forums. Comparing them is not only inaccurate, it is intellectually dishonest.
But the heart of the issue is technological. The dismissive handwave at the “pistol vs jetplane” argument is deeply unserious. This isn’t about mocking rebels—it’s about recognising reality. A 21st-century government doesn't need boots on the ground to control resistance. It has facial recognition, drone swarms, satellite tracking, and cyber warfare. All at its fingertips.
You could bury yourself in the Appalachians and still be watched from space.
The idea that armed resistance in modern America could replicate Vietnam-era insurgency or WWII sabotage is not just flawed, it’s laughable. And if you're advocating for a fantasy, you're not arguing. You're storytelling.
Let’s also address the emotional core of Pro’s argument, this breathless tribute to “human capability.”
Of course people are capable of great resistance. But capability without context is just bravado.
The truth is that civic institutions, legal systems, and democratic accountability, not bullets, are what constrain tyranny in the modern world.
You don’t challenge a surveillance state with nostalgia and backyard militias. You do it by voting, organising, and building institutions with teeth.
Pro’s vision is rooted not in strategic thinking, but in adolescent defiance.
And finally, let’s be clear about the tone. Pro attempts to discredit criticism before it's even made, claiming dissenters “mock” the resistance model.
This rhetorical shield is weak. It suggests deep insecurity about the strength of the position.
If your argument cannot withstand direct criticism—if it needs emotional insulation from historical name-dropping and preemptive outrage, it isn’t an argument worth defending.
Pro’s case rests on an imagined past, misreads the present, and has no meaningful roadmap for the future. It’s not a serious proposal. It’s a campfire story for those who want to believe they’re one rifle away from revolution. But in the real world, where states don’t blink before deploying drones and tracking cell signals, this isn’t resistance. It’s delusion, dressed up in nostalgia.
Pro’s extended commentary attempts to construct a historical and cultural justification for widespread firearm access in the United States. However, what is presented is not a serious analysis of historical trajectories or political development, but rather an amalgam of cherry-picked fragments, Wikipedia excerpts, and anecdotal sentimentality. In an academic context, this would not pass for a footnote, let alone a thesis. This essay will outline how Pro’s argument is undermined by historical fallacy, selective comparison, cultural oversimplification, and rhetorical distortion.
Cherry-Picking History is Not Comparative Analysis
Pro begins by anticipating criticism of selective comparison, ironically by engaging in it.
The invocation of Spanish colonisation versus British colonisation is framed to produce a convenient dichotomy - Mexico as an allegedly disarmed, passive society, versus the United States as a bastion of armed liberty. This is not comparative politics. This is mythologising.
Firstly, Pro’s description of Spain’s colonial model, using indigenous populations as economic tools and disarming them, is neither unique nor unusual.
Firstly, Pro’s description of Spain’s colonial model, using indigenous populations as economic tools and disarming them, is neither unique nor unusual.
British colonialism was no less exploitative or coercive. The British Empire’s rule in India, Ireland, Africa, and the Caribbean followed similar tactics of divide, dominate, and disarm.
The notion that the British fostered a tradition of armed liberty while Spain fostered passivity is an ahistorical fabrication, designed not to illuminate the past, but to retroactively justify a modern ideology.
Furthermore, the framing of Mexico as a failed state due to gun regulation ignores the deep structural causes of its security crisis - narco-state dynamics, U.S. arms trafficking, systemic corruption, and economic inequality.
Furthermore, the framing of Mexico as a failed state due to gun regulation ignores the deep structural causes of its security crisis - narco-state dynamics, U.S. arms trafficking, systemic corruption, and economic inequality.
To imply that Mexico’s modern struggles stem from civilian disarmament is not only reductionist, it is intellectually insulting.
The American Gun Myth and the Fantasy of Cultural Inheritance
Pro invokes the well-worn trope of “free men” being historically armed in the Anglo-American tradition.
This claim deliberately ignores the very real and racialised restrictions on gun ownership throughout U.S. history - from Black Codes and slave patrols to the disarmament of Indigenous nations.
The Second Amendment was never intended as a universal principle of individual empowerment, it was a legal compromise forged in a country built on settler colonialism and slavery. To recast this legacy as a democratic virtue is to whitewash it beyond recognition.
Citing obscure 1960s shooting clubs does not constitute evidence of a coherent cultural lineage. It simply illustrates that gun use was once recreational in some parts of America—a fact that has nothing to do with the proliferation of high-powered semi-automatic weapons today. That Pro must reach back half a century to find examples of responsible civilian gun culture highlights the disconnection between historical nostalgia and present-day violence.
Citing obscure 1960s shooting clubs does not constitute evidence of a coherent cultural lineage. It simply illustrates that gun use was once recreational in some parts of America—a fact that has nothing to do with the proliferation of high-powered semi-automatic weapons today. That Pro must reach back half a century to find examples of responsible civilian gun culture highlights the disconnection between historical nostalgia and present-day violence.
Cultural Decline and PTSD Mockery: A Red Herring
The assertion that American society has become too “sensitive” to guns, illustrated by a mocking reference to Gersh Kuntzman’s article, serves as a rhetorical distraction, not an argument. PTSD is a clinical diagnosis, not a punchline.
The rise of mass shootings in schools is not a product of cultural softness but a symptom of systemic policy failure, mental health neglect, and unfettered access to deadly weapons.
To trivialize psychological trauma in defence of gun culture is not only ethically repugnant, it exposes the profound moral unseriousness of the argument.
And the glib assertion that school shooters are simply a “fad” like bell-bottom pants is perhaps the most disgraceful claim in the entire submission. It reduces a national epidemic of youth violence to cultural fashion. This is not reasoning, it is sociopathy in prose.
And the glib assertion that school shooters are simply a “fad” like bell-bottom pants is perhaps the most disgraceful claim in the entire submission. It reduces a national epidemic of youth violence to cultural fashion. This is not reasoning, it is sociopathy in prose.
Guns Are Not the Custodians of Freedom
Pro’s argument attempts to tether historical legacy, cultural tradition, and civic independence to the right to bear arms. But it does so through the worst form of ideological storytelling: one-sided, historically manipulated, and completely disengaged from modern empirical realities.
Freedom is preserved by institutions, laws, education, and democratic vigilance—not by hoarding weaponry and invoking a misremembered past. Guns are not symbols of liberty—they are tools, and in the modern United States, they are far too often tools of chaos, not freedom.
Let’s not waste time dressing this up.
Pro’s argument is a confused mess of half-remembered history, cherry-picked quotes, and poetic fluff meant to sound deep while avoiding any real responsibility.
It tries to wrap modern American gun violence in the robes of liberty and revolution. But peel back the dramatic tone, and all that’s left is a hollow fantasy that collapses under its own contradictions.
“More People Die from Other Stuff” — So What?
Pro starts with the tired line: “More people die from convenience and pleasure than from guns.” Great.
People also die from heart disease, but we don’t shrug off murder because it’s statistically smaller. That’s like saying, “Well, more people drown than get stabbed, so why care about knives?”
This is pure deflection. Gun deaths aren’t just numbers, they’re acts of deliberate violence, often preventable, and they’re unique in how fast and efficiently they end lives. The problem isn’t just death, it’s how it happens, how often, and how easily.
This is pure deflection. Gun deaths aren’t just numbers, they’re acts of deliberate violence, often preventable, and they’re unique in how fast and efficiently they end lives. The problem isn’t just death, it’s how it happens, how often, and how easily.
Trying to make peace with that by saying, “I wouldn’t cower” doesn’t make you brave. It just makes you disconnected from reality.
The Machiavelli Myth
Ah yes, the classic “Machiavelli said it, so it must be brilliant” card.
The quote, “A government which does not trust its citizens to be armed is not itself to be trusted”, gets tossed in like it’s gospel.
Spoiler: Machiavelli wasn’t an American founding father. He supported authoritarian control, manipulation, and strong central power when it served the state.
He’d likely laugh at the idea of modern civilians clinging to assault rifles in their garages thinking they’re a check on tyranny.
Using a Renaissance power-broker to justify modern gun obsession is like quoting Sun Tzu to justify bar fights.
Using a Renaissance power-broker to justify modern gun obsession is like quoting Sun Tzu to justify bar fights.
It’s not clever, it’s grasping at intellectual straws.
Ireland, Yeats, and Sentimental Bloodshed
Then we’re treated to Yeats and references to Irish independence, as if a 20th-century anti-colonial struggle justifies America’s refusal to regulate civilian AR-15s.
You don’t get to drag poetry into a policy debate and expect that to count as evidence. Ireland fought for sovereignty under foreign occupation.
America is fighting school shootings and domestic terrorism with the tools of war we refuse to erase. Big difference.
Quoting poetry about blood doesn’t make your argument noble. It just makes it melodramatic.
Quoting poetry about blood doesn’t make your argument noble. It just makes it melodramatic.
“It’s Not the Guns, It’s Society” – The Classic Cop-Out
This part is always predictable. Guns aren’t the issue, society is.
Here’s the thing - every society has problems. But only America lets unstable, angry, radicalised, or mentally ill people get their hands on weapons designed to kill multiple people in seconds. legally.
The idea that removing or regulating guns is, “just covering the disease”, is backwards.
The idea that removing or regulating guns is, “just covering the disease”, is backwards.
When someone’s bleeding out, you don’t sit around debating how they got cut. You stop the bleeding. Then you fix the cause.
The refusal to even try makes it clear. Pro’s not interested in solving the problem, just defending it.
Switchblades and Fire. Now We’re Just Rambling
We get a detour into switchblade bans and a bizarre comparison of school shooters to fire. First, switchblades aren’t the hill anyone’s dying on, and pretending they represent meaningful “government overreach” is laughable when mass shootings are happening weekly.
Second, comparing a fire to a school shooter? Really? Fire doesn’t make a manifesto. It doesn’t pick targets. It doesn’t feel rage or plot revenge.
That’s not an analogy, it’s a lazy dodge.
Liberty Costs Lives? That’s Your Pitch?
Pro’s most outrageous claim is that liberty “always comes at the cost of innocent lives.” Read that again. They’re admitting that children being shot in classrooms is just the price of freedom. If your version of freedom depends on dead kids, terrorised communities, and a nation too scared to go to the movies, maybe it’s not freedom. Maybe it’s just delusion wrapped in a flag.
This Isn’t an Argument. It’s a Performance.
Everything in Pro’s statement, from the Yeats poem to the cherry-picked quotes to the dramatic defense of “responsible adults”, isn’t about solving real problems.
It’s about sounding profound while doing nothing.
If you want real freedom, start by protecting the people who live in it. Guns don’t defend liberty when they’re being used to destroy lives inside that liberty. And quoting dead philosophers, poets, and colonial history doesn’t make modern inaction noble. It just makes it tragic.
If you want real freedom, start by protecting the people who live in it. Guns don’t defend liberty when they’re being used to destroy lives inside that liberty. And quoting dead philosophers, poets, and colonial history doesn’t make modern inaction noble. It just makes it tragic.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con argues strictly. Classic anti-gun arguments. Even though i agree with Con's position, I can't think of any argument that Pro forgets to make for defending his (the higher-difficulty position). It might even be that the wording of the topic "Gun rights" "More anti-gun regulations" narrow Con's options. And Pro doesn't forget to take advantage about this either.
Con argues convincingly but so does pro, with arguments which appeal to both sides (guns/noguns). Pro grabs the reader's attention by defending the difficult position so well but that should not cause one to ignore the arguments of the other side, also as good but standing on an easier position.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I wish we had a style category to immediately award to pro (sliding a Monty Python reference into his opening). And con's request "along stepping away from executing use of Warhammer references ... To make this a debate worth engaging in, for the audience..." as an audience member, having bits of levity greatly help me stay focused on a debate.
That said, the setup resolution is vague, like what about gun rights?
Ok, not going to quote every line or anything, but just some highlights which really stood out to me.
History:
Pro points out that gun ownership prevents the movement from having a "monopoly upon violence" and builds out from there with some good rhetoric.
Note: some if this line of reasoning could be easily countered with gun ownership failing to prevent various government sponsored atrocities in the USA (not to con caught that... in fact, he argued against it having occurred "There is no official record of tyrannical rule" ... Oh, in the last round (after pro could no longer respond) this was at least alluded to with "Black Codes and slave patrols to the disarmament of Indigenous nations").
Con wisely concedes that guns were once necessary, to build a case that such is no longer the case.
Con makes a great and quotable point with: "But culture does not equate to correctness. My own place of origin, Pakistan, has a heavy culture of political corruption and sectarianism."
NEED, COMPARISON, AND REGULATION:
This section suffers a bit from lack of pro's conclusions about the information.
It detours into other countries, and if they can be compared to the USA when they lack such strong constitutional laws (gun rights in the USA are a constitutional issue, which makes the counters odd).
Pro makes a good point with "There are more dangerous means than guns they 'could use."
Con misquotes pro as saying “school shooters would be more dangerous to a population than guns” ... Always be careful if using double quotation marks, as those are specifically for quotation. This was of course not an isolated incident. I found the closing criticism of this reasoning that arsonists are incapable of making a manifesto as shoots are (to quote: "Fire doesn’t make a manifesto") to be a rather obvious scarecrow argument. Needless to say, the better path would have been reminding the audience that taking away tools of murder, decreases the ease of murder.
Along these same lines, pro leveraged school shooting clubs to strengthen his proposal of more gun education as an alternative solution to gun violence; implicitly asking if it can be so safe then, why can't it be now?
Fallacies:
Pro was able to defend that he was not engaged in pure fallacious uses of the appeals. It's a good tactic to accuse people of fallacies, but one which risks losing the audience there's even a decent defense (in this case by explaining the use of "evoking" sentiments and such, rather than trying to blind people with them).
Closing:
I outright agree with pro "If you want real freedom, start by protecting the people who live in it. Guns don’t defend liberty when they’re being used to destroy lives inside that liberty. And quoting dead philosophers, poets, and colonial history doesn’t make modern inaction noble. It just makes it tragic."
...
Arguments: Pro
I am having to assume the debate was about broadly maintaining gun access in the USA or repelling it from civilian use.
I wholly agree with con. That said, pro was the more convincing speaker, showing ample reason why gun access remains necessary in the USA such as to protect us from a tyrannical government, and also that cons aims could be better achieved through simple education.
Sources: Tied
They lean pro, but not by enough to further enhance his victory (they'd be enough to mitigate cons had arguments gone that way). Lots and lots of sources from pro; and which there was some wise criticism from con which decreased their impact but they were not proven counter to pro's case or any such thing. Con introducing his own sources as "Verified and credible source" counter intuitively harmed them, as it was like putting a question mark on those very traits (website name would be better, or what is so good about them by comparison).
That said, pro was risking accusations of source spam with the number of them, and insufficient analysis of each one (there was at least thematic analysis, which is why I am identifying a risk rather than penalizing a fault)
Conduct: Tied
Leans a little to pro due to con making up quotations.
I don't really 'enjoy thinking on that,
But. . . I 'do debate partially to examine my own beliefs.
I'd accept such a debate.
I'd stand Pro with "Circumcision on male infants is immoral unless medically necessary." - so that wouldn't really work.
I'd be happy to debate something else if you're interested.
Possibly - "Does God exist?"
I'd be Pro, and you'd be Con.
This wouldn't be set on sources, but logic.
Well, there's still a lot of time left, winners is still up in the air I think.
Hm, I don't think I've ever done a rematch in a debate,
Debated a few 'different people in succession on the same subject of dueling, but didn't debate any of the 'people more than once.
I 'do want to debate this subject again at some point, but I think I'll pass on that for now.
Hm, 'similar topic. .
Circumcision on male infants is immoral unless medically necessary.
I'd go first, be Con and you Pro, 3 rounds?
I've been considering trying for that debate for a bit, since reading 21Pilots vs IamAdityaDhaka's debate on,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?
Though I'm an Atheist, a lot of my morality is normative, traditions, and culture.
I think it could be an interesting debate, questions of group freedom, individual rights, necessity, maybe even questions of transhumanism as technology increases ever forwards.
Thanks for voting.
I don't think it's 'so unstable a position, so long as the debate is limited to what 'America, Americans ought do.
As well as avoiding the 'total freedom to own guns position, which 'is one that some people own, but I don't think it's the 'common position in America, on guns.
I find this area of debate quite interesting. I respect your victory and patriotism.
I was wondering if you'd be open to either re-debate this, or debate a similar topic.
Please cast vote
Thanks for voting and feedback.
Are there any Government sponsored atrocities in the USA, that come to mind in particular?
I suppose there's been some times Government has come into conflict with new territories, such as Utah.
Various Company vs Labor conflicts that turned out poorly for labor usually (I assume).
War veterans wanting to be paid right after the Revolution.
Maybe The Black Panthers.
I find it interesting that you are for gun control to (?) degree,
Due to my making a general (Possibly erroneous) assumption about people from the US military being primarily Pro Gun.
What would you say influences your views on gun control?
I 'do think I could have done a better job with sources.
In expounding upon their implications, or what from them apply to my argument.
Various insurgencies for example, I might have done a better job in laying out exactly 'what from those instances, could occur similarly in America.
Why there were so 'many, I feel as though 'every time I make some factual claim I 'ought back it up with a source for proof.
It 'also feels a problem when there are 'so 'many conflicting studies and examples. Most all with different variables. It seemed to me the best method to include 'many, and try to argue what was common in all.
Also for Mexico, I had a hard time finding a source that talked explicitly at length about gun control in Colonial Mexico.
FYI, it amounted to nothing.
I’ll be running an AI check before I vote. There’s a few red flags. Hopefully they amount to nothing.
Hello everyone, please cast your votes. Thank you
Glad to hear it.
Don't take it personally, much of what may be perceived as annoyance may just be my style of debate. I commend you for persisting throughout all 3 rounds.
You 'really did not seem to like my arguments or style,
Ah well, thanks for accepting and debating all rounds.