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.

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:

Snoopy takes a novel position; he is not arguing pro gun bans, but is arguing that Guns do not necessarily have a positive role to play. The exact specifics of his position however aren’t fully clear. As there is no specific data, and no detailed argument that can easily be assessed due to its more narrative style, it’s hatd to work out how to weigh this.

My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant, while con makes a case that guns don’t help. Without reciting pros evidencd I can’t accept cons primary argument.

Con argues that non lethal means are preferable - as is training, de-escalation etc. Con doesn’t really justify how this can be generally effective. Con in reply provides just enough of an argument against it

I think Cons issue is that his argument was structure for a philosophical argument, on the forums; in the context of a debate, this type of argument that attempts to convince without facts don’t work very well when covering a non philosophical resolution: especially when the opponent has substantial facts to present.

As a result of the above, the real two key premises con presented that are easily weighable were refuted by pro. thus pro gets argument.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

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:

Snoopy takes a pro-gun-rights stance and says that Pro isn't really pro-gun, just pro-right-to-bear-arms. This semantic Kritik had some potential but then Con forfeits the final two Rounds and is basically surrendering to Pro who says he is both for guns and the right to bear arms.

What Con had to do was highlight that the endgame is to remove guns and the need for them. Con was partially successful in this but barely touched on it before forfeiting two Rounds of debate where he/she had to elaborate on that.