Instigator / Pro
Points: 35

Self defence in Australia

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Brendo
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
This is a debate regarding self defence in Australia. The main argument is allowing members of the public to purchase and use non-lethal weapons such as a taser or pepper spray.
The BoP is shared. Pro needs to prove that self defence weapons should be legalised, while Con needs to explain why they shouldn’t.
Round 1
Published:
Australia should legalise the ability for the Australian public to carry a form of self defence. Currently, it is illegal for the general public to carry pepper spray, tasers, or really anything that can be used as a weapon. I disagree with it. I strongly believe that Australia should allow its citizens to purchase non-lethal weapons for the purpose of self defence.

In order to legally purchase/own one of these self defence tools, the person must be over 18 with no previous criminal convictions or behavioural disabilities. It is even possible to implement a rule that owners of these tools must have a valid permit. Similar to the open carry permit seen in America.

If a person uses one of these tools incorrectly, that person immediately looses their right to own a self defence tool and will be charged accordingly. For example, a person tasers their dog while drunk at a party. That person will loose their access to any other self defence tool, and will be charged with animal cruelty.

Crime rate is currently on the rise in Australia. An investigation by the Australia Bureau of Statistics explain that the number of sexual assaults are increasing.

“The number of Sexual assault victims recorded by police increased by 8% across Australia, from 23,040 victims in 2016 to 24,957 victims in 2017. This was the highest number recorded since the beginning of the time series in 2010.”

The article follows this by explaining  that it is the sixth consecutive year the number of sexual assault victims have increased.

Allowing people to carry self defence items will allow potential of crime to defend themselves and prevent them from becoming another statistic. Women already claim to walk around at night while walking alone at night. Are you going to take away that person’s wish to feel safe?

Sexual assault statistics
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/DA3DED213BAE8114CA257178001B6949?Opendocument

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round 1 argument. I have no choice other than to extend my arguments.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
I assume that YeshuaRedeemed will forfeit the final round making this a FF. I would also like to point out that every single debate this user has participated in has contained at least one forfeit.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @Alec
They even restricted Airsoft. Apparently you aren't allowed to think about a will to live independent of the government. I can hardly believe a sitting president referenced Australian policy.
#7
Added:
--> @Brendo
At this point anything other than a concession from con would be poor conduct to be dismissed. Final round blitzkriegs are not a tactic anyone with integrity rewards.
#6
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Challenge considered...
#5
Added:
Suggested K: Australia does not exist, so self defense cannot take place there.
#4
Added:
--> @Brendo
I don't mean to be rude to you, but Australia is a police state. This is why they have a tyrannical government that jails people for misgendering and makes it illegal to protest 150 meters or less outside an abortion clinic.
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
Yes they have. Tasers are banned completely, and pepper spray is also illegal in most states territories.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Brendo
Did Australia ban the items you mentioned?
#1
#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:
Arguments-Pro was the only one to make one
Sources-Con used none while Pro used one
S&P-Tie
Conduct- Con forfeited
#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:
Full forfeit
#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:
Full forfeit
#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:
Forfeiture.
#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:
FF