Points: 76

Should the Columbine Basement tapes be released to the public?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 11 votes the winner is ...
Dylan_Kleboid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 53
Description
Hello its my first debate so please go easy on me lol
Round 1
Published:
I believe the basement tapes should be released for a few reasons. 

1. And other basement tapes sorta things are released for sandy hook shooter, and the Virginia tech shooter. 

2. They could censor out how to make bombs and how to hide weapons

3. The tapes can be used for psychologists to study 

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Ok than lol
Published:
Hello, Now, this is my reason for why the Columbine Basement Tapes shouldn't be released:


The tapes could be corrupted. You never know where those tapes have been. Also, if someone that would like them to look guilty to prove some sort of point they are easily manipulated. This would also stir up more controversy and bring up bad feelings for the families involved. Why bring that up? Such a horrible occurrence that day. This is like having them relive this again, and I don't see any point in doing that. Why not just appreciate the children of today?
Round 3
Published:
Well, this is why personally, I believe the tapes should be mostly uncensored minus the bits where they teach how to make bombs. Aside from that, it should all go uncensored. 

And also the tapes may stir up bad feeling, however than you'd also have to be against the coverage of the event itself entirely and the various books surrounding it. Case and point the tapes would be very useful to learn how to prevent future mass shootings and would also be interesting to watch. 

Forfeited
Added:
--> @oromagi
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: It is not a full forfeit--Con did make arguments in Round 2. In order to award points beyond conduct, Con's R2 remarks must be addressed.
************************************************************************
#10
Added:
--> @bsh1
Oh lol my bad
#9
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfrued08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con FF half of the rounds, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD would be fine, except that Con, who the voter says engaged in poor conduct, is the one who gets the conduct point. This was likely just a mistake by the voter. Awarding the point to Pro would correct the vote.
************************************************************************
#8
Added:
FBI looks for woman ‘infatuated’ with Columbine shooting
https://www.apnews.com/c71a09745a8d4973b8114b1f0a52604e
#7
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD: Pro reasons that the tapes would be benefical to psychological study
Con reasons the tapes could be manipulated and cause harm to family.
While i do agree it may help in psychological study, families had access to tapes in 99 I have no stake in this personally. Also it doesn't negate the local disclosure of the incident. I say let sleeping dogs lie. There are other videos of shootings and the 946 page report was released anyways.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
#6
Added:
I forgot to award conduct to instigator.
#5
Added:
The anniversary of this is coming up. I only worked a mile away from Columbine and had driven past the school that morning. If you're looking for the best local coverage of that event, Westword magazine has been following many aspects of that story for many years.
#4
Added:
--> @Dylan_Kleboid
Not bad for your first try. I can't wait for your rebuttal.
Contender
#3
Added:
hmmm, interesting topic can't wait to see your opponents response.
#2
Added:
--> @Dylan_Kleboid
I'm in favor of almost every form of government transparency with the extremely rare exception of current events that are tactically sensitive to a justified war effort.
#1
#11
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Both produced equal arguments, from my perspective. No sources. Pro used slang. Con forfeited two rounds.
#10
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
.
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The instigator forfeited almost all Rounds.
The contender's argument is based on if the tapes are corrupted. The problem here is that it is an unfair position for the instigator to defend and an easy position for the contender to defend if corrupted. The problem is we don't know and that hypothetical makes or breaks this debate because it revolves around it. It is a hypothetical so it can't be right or wrong and since he was using it in that way I will vote for Pro for most convincing argument for not using cheap tactics.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct for forfeits
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con FF half of the rounds, this is poor conduct on their part
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture (2 out of 3, no debate could even form).
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro reasons that the tapes should be released for 3 reasons. 1: Other tapes aren't censored. 2: could censor out how to make bombs that are mentioned in detail in tapes. 3: Psychological studies.
Con argues 3 counter points: 1: Possibility of tapes being corrupted and make others look guilty. 2: would stir up controversy and make family re live the experience. 3: Appreciate the children of today (reference to now day shootings i suppose?)
Con does not refute Point 1 or 2 or 3. He simply argues the moral considerations and implications involved in possible corruption of tapes or rehashing of a bad circumstance to upset the family.
I feel neither side weighed the other evidence including the 946 page report released in 1999 nor considered availability of information to the local people, However, Pro has made more convincing arguments for tape release than con did in moral denouncement of it.
Both had acceptable grammar
Con forfeited on round 1 and 3.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This is basically a full forfeit with con forfeiting all but one round.
Pros major issue about psychologists being able to study the tapes for understanding and research purposes was unrefuted by con - this is a major unconverted benefit which appears to be an excellent reason even were I to buy all cons other claims.
Arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument Point:
Pro made 3 shallow but highly intuitive points in the opening and con replied with an intuitive non sequitur.
Pro:
1. There was precedent (pro cited sandy hook)
2. Reasoned that we could censor some of it.
3. appealed to the value it could have in the psychology community as far as studies.
This seems like a sufficient practical appeal assuming there are no counter arguments for it. Lets look at Con.
Con said:
"The tapes could be corrupted. You never know where those tapes have been. Also, if someone that would like them to look guilty to prove some sort of point they are easily manipulated. This would also stir up more controversy and bring up bad feelings for the families involved. Why bring that up? Such a horrible occurrence that day. This is like having them relive this again, and I don't see any point in doing that. Why not just appreciate the children of today?"
First con says the tapes could be corrupted. this argument seems like a non sequitur and did not move me to reconsider pros initial appeal.
Con appeals to propaganda by saying that somebody could misuse the tapes for their own end. This was not intuitive because we obviously don't hold this standard for other tapes so con did not explain this enough for me to accept it.
Con appeals to the families involved but the argument was short and provided no support for itself. At best, this was enough for me to consider a possible extra factor but Con did not take this to it's logical conclusion so I couldn't accept it even if I wanted to.
Overall, Pro made a barely sufficient practical appeal which seemed reasonable to me and Con's arguments did nothing to diminish this.
Grammar Point:
Spelling was roughly equal. My motivation for awarding this point is due to the vastly different structures of the arguments. Pro's argument was arranged in bullet form with each premise properly separated. This made it extremely easy to read and comprehend.
Con's entire statement was in one paragraph and mad no effort to separate points. This required me to do extra leg work to ensure that I was reading the correct amount of points on con's side. This was actually so bad that the last few sentences are ambiguous as to whether they're one consolidated point or a bunch of mini points. This was extreme enough that it had an effect on my ability to understand con's argument so the grammar point goes to pro.
Conduct goes to pro based on the forfeits from Con.
Sources Tied.