Instigator / Pro
14
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#888

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Status
Finished

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

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

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Our_Boat_is_Right
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

I will waive first round, pro will waive the last. Failure of this is loss of argument and conduct points.

I believe in self-defense, concealed-carry, and am pro gun.

Among the topics will be the effectiveness of gun bans, concealed-carry effects, and the ethics of taking away guns from people.

I am for background checks and mental illness screening, so that will most likely not be a topic.

Good luck to my opponent.

-->
@Ramshutu

Eh, you didn't explain how the Pro's "main point" lends anything in favor or against Pro-Gun, and its not implied.

This is literally all you wrote: "My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant"

I do appreciate the critique as it pertains to my presentation though.

-->
@Ramshutu

Edited

According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. My "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" philosophy to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, and ultimately imploding on its own while leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro demonstrates instinctively as if to justify themselves as a lesser of evil , even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.

The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thank you for the critique. According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. Essentially, my "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" position to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, allowing the argument to run its course naturally, ultimately implode on its own failings, leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro position you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro does instinctively to justify themselves as a lesser of evil, even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.

The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed

Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Oh, I don't much care about the points.

-->
@Snoopy

Good thing you didn't or else you would have lost the argument and conduct point.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I tried to post an argument and closing statement up in round five but it still failed. Thank You for your time

-->
@Snoopy

ok will do

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

To clarify, I don't care if my internet account wins or loses. I don't blame you for the forfeited round. I did fail to post in time, and I should have accounted for having a properly working device at the time I wanted to post. If you would like to discuss the ethics of your own choice, I would be fine with doing so over private message. I'm not accusing you of anything here in the comment section though.

-->
@Snoopy

You failed to post in time. I've gave you multiple chances, even created this new debate as a result of your previous forfeit. That's on you, not me.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Its not really about me. Its just a wasted debate now because its incomplete. I mean my position might still be weighted favorably or not, but the argument should have been added to round 4, and you opted out of final statements. Plus, I actually addressed some serious concerns that should have been noted just because of the nature of the topic.

-->
@Snoopy

You have had multiple chances. I'm not posting an argument from the comments.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Argument Round 4, in Comments 21 through 19. Please Post up in single quote

I should not have to waste my time answering to disrespectful or dishonest misrepresentations. For one example being assumed under false pretense, I did not concede anything by saying "I would be inclined" and did not bring up any gun bans to begin with.

"Yes, so this is a perfect example of a gun potentially saving lives."

This is an example of two people wielding guns, who both decided up till a point in time, not to hurt one another. In real life, the mentality that the gun saves would need to be trained out of people. Situational awareness is paramount, and being prepared is crucial. You don’t know exactly how you will react under stress.

"My opponent has continued to ignore my statistics of guns saving lives, so until he does do; I assume he concedes this point."

This is false, as I clearly did not ignore the statistics. It is unwarranted for me to validate or invalidate the statistics, and I advocate among other things not to “stoop to the level”, as explained in round one, which was disregarded by you up till round as was asserted “My opponent's argument has not consisted of any real arguments, statistics, or a position of guns.” By simply not stooping to their level, it is possible for the debater to stand testament to how shallow the “pro-gun” position is, having resorted to a reflection to the sycophantic nonsense displayed by others. I am not “anti-gun”, and in taking the “pro-gun” stance it must be disappointing not to have such an easy “opponent” to banter with. “We cannot argue for the consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.” - Snoopy

Once we have agreed to the establishment in round one, then we can start to have a meaningful conversation.

"I am talking about the risk in those instances where people want to protect themselves. Not the overall scheme of the likelihood of it happening."

I recall a story of someone who had a break in around 2 or 3 AM. It was dark, and they would normally be armed. They were home with their wife, and heard the break in, and footsteps coming down the hall. They carried regularly and normally relied on a firearm for protection, but at this time, it was unfortunately in another room and inaccessible. As the intruder neared, their heart racing the husband did the only thing he could to protect his wife, and took them on with their bare hands, rendering them unconscious. It was the neighbor coming home from their own bachelorette party. They then learned to have a proactive self defense strategy, got an alarm system, kept their phone charged, got a dog.

Darn, failed to post

Wow, even another round of no real evidence! This is too easy.

my wife's a doctor folks, ok them leftist bullies bully America,ok folks. ok, look you are man or woman,thats it,ok folks. Facts dont care about your feelings,ok folks.

Great, another round of snoopy's abstract ideas that have no data, statistics, or real significance to back it up. Should have gotten a better opponent smh.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Hey, Boat-

Please re-read the DART Code of Conduct and desist with the mindfuck.

https://www.debateart.com/rules

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Still carrying on.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Or maybe Pegasus? DeShawnte? d'Quavion?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Guess you are making this up as you go along.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Do you live in Atlanta? Maybe your name is D'Shavious or some weird black name

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>Your name is James. You live in Atlanta. I've seen you at school. Your pretty sexy.

I am not James so I don't see how you got this.

-->
@Alec

lol i'm just trolling i'm not gay

btw brady is the goat

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

How do you know that much about him? I thought you lived in New England since you once called Tom Brady the GOAT.

"Your pretty sexy."

Are you gay?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Your name is James. You live in Atlanta. I've seen you at school. Your pretty sexy.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Define sexy and tell me how you know me personally.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

What's confusing? Your sexy.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

???

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Your sexy

-->
@Snoopy

Evidence would help your case and I am sure you have the space for it.