Have u seen Gus Van Sant’s “Elephant?” I recommend it. A sort of fictional retelling of Columbine. There’s a scene where the shooters quietly make out in the shower just before arming themselves. I think if the two were in love - each trying to impress the other by cold disaffection- they make a kind of perverse sense. I was in love like that at about their age in about the same time and place. We weren’t inspired by violence, but I certainly did many foolish and illegal things only to impress him. I certainly understand the allure of some rite or event that says, “its you and me alone and fuck all else fuck even death so long as u r there “
The Smiths have that line
If a double decker bus crashes into us
To die by your side
Is such a wonderful way to die
And if a ten ton truck
Kills the both of us
To die by your side
Well the pleasure the privilege is mine
BLM and Feminists are grass roots and good, certainly. I have done a debate where I had to argue just that: the good BLM has done. I, for one, would struggle to argue the same for ANTIFA.
Have you considered that the word radical means the same thing as "grassroots"?
Wiktionary:
From French radical, from Late Latin radicalis (“of or pertaining to the root, having roots, radical”), from Latin radix (“root”); see radix.
Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
"His beliefs are radical."
I don't think that an argument "radical movements are inevitably good" would fly so I wouldn't defending every grassroots movement. American White Supremacists are certainly radical and grassroots but there nothing inevitably good about White Supremacists, perhaps even nothing good at all.
I have defended ANTIFA from the charge of terrorism but this resolution would be hard to falsify: has ANTIFA done any good, really? If Proud Boys, etc. were left alone to continue to march and occasionally murder in (Western U.S.) liberal enclaves they would sooner be seen for what they are: violent white supremacist thugs. By creating a (very occasionally) violent counter-force of (mostly lesbian) teenagers, ANTIFA gives FOX ground to stand with the white supremecists, to democracy's (somewhat) increased peril.
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 concedes. Conduct to PRO, all other points to CON
So immunity is usually offered to one perp in order to get a bigger perp, right? Do admins have any power of legal immunity? Why are they offering that immunity to victims? In exchange for what? Is there some recent irl example u could point to?
Now that is funny- reading Dickey for Miranda is funny but also I assumed there was some scene in Hamilton where someone was kept repeating "objection" which seems not only plausible but also some dim memory of "1776." Coupled with the misposts our incompetence is virtually resonating.
Below is the text of CON R1 argument missing due to a mispost by CON. PRO is free to ignore this argument but CON includes it here by way of ammends and demonstration of full faith effort. Thanks to readers for their indulgence.
A gun is a "weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise." [1]
A ban is "an official or legal prohibition." [2]
Stupid is "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." [3]
RESOLUTION: Gun Bans are Stupid
PRO's resolution lacks any kind of specifics- no nations or law-making bodies are specified. No specific laws or restrictions are identified. CON is forced to conclude that PRO opposes all and every prohibition on firearms no matter the place or context or situation.
As instigator, the Burden of Proof is on PRO to show that any and all gun bans demonstrate poor intelligence no matter the situation.
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the principal architect of 9/11 were to request that a shipment of 50 AK-47s be delivered to his cell in Guantanamo, PRO must either demonstrate how it would be unintelligent for camp commander US Navy Capt. John Fisher to deny Mohammed's request (since such denial would be an official prohibition and therefore, a ban) or admit at least some gun bans are sensible in some contexts and situations.
PRO has cast the resolution far too wide and must now defend, retract, or limit the argument.
PRO's CASE:
PRO claims gun bans increase violent crimes and uses. PRO cites one piece of evidence and that evidence is false.
'Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation! "
PRO is citing an opinion piece written by the NRA. PRO does not specify which weapons ban but the article indicates 1989: [4]
"After its 1989 ban, California's murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. "
The NRA and PRO claim that CA murder rate increased 26% in the 5 years after passing assault weapons legislation. But FBI records show the murder rate per 100,000 actually declined by 1% in 1994 from the 1990 rate. The NRA is forced to stop reporting after 5 years because CA homicide rates declined significantly over the next couple of decades, down by more than half. Then the NRA claims:
"California banned more guns in January 2000 and murder has since averaged 12% higher than the national rate." [4]
But the FBI reports say that the murder rate per 100,000 has continued to decline and is now down around the national average. [7]
Year CA US
1996: 9.1 7.4
2000: 6.1 5.5
2005: 6.5 5.6
2010: 4.8 4.8
2014: 4.4 4.4 [7]
By 2010, CA's murder rate and the US murder rate were the same according to the FBI. By 2014, when the NRA made this claim, CA & US murder rates were still the same. Both of the NRA's claims deliberately distort the State of California's successes. Since California banned assault rifles 30 years ago, the murder rate has dropped by almost two-thirds.
Let's note that the NRA as source of crime data has been shown to be deliberately misleading in pursuit of self-interest. CON requests that we disregard the NRA as a reliable source of information.
According to the FBI, PRO's claim:
"the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation!"
is the opposite of the truth. PRO's claim that guns reduce crime stands unsupported.
PRO argues that guns are only tools. The point seems to be that many tools are potentially dangerous but aren't banned.
CON counters that screwdrivers and hammers are tools with much utility beyond their potential for violence. What utility does a gun offer except for violence?
CON counters that screwdrivers and hammers are designed to maximize constructive functions. An AK-47's primary advantage over other guns is that it goes a long time without jamming:
"The AK-47 was designed to be a simple, reliable fully automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, using mass production methods that were state of the art in the Soviet Union during the late 1940s. The AK-47 uses a long stroke gas system that is generally associated with great reliability in adverse conditions. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle." [8]
AK-47's are designed to fire many times without needing to be cleaned- which ought not to be significant for hunting or self-defense but could be a decisive factor in a longer running fire-fight- a military engagement, for example, or mass murdering while police try to stop you.
In any case, many tools are commonly and appropriately banned under many circumstances. A pressure-cooker bomb is only a tool but pressure-cooker bombs are appropriately banned from a wide variety of venues- airplanes, subways, kindergarten classrooms, etc.
Since pressure-cooker bombs and AK-47's are designed for the same utility (maximum human carnage) what logic bans pressure-cookers but not AK-47's in the same venues and circumstances?
PRO argues that increases in gun ownership have reduced crime rate since 1991.
"As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half."
PRO is giving us more data from the NRA here but I think we all agree that violent crime is way down but can PRO establish that gun ownership is way up? According to Wikipedia:
"Accurate figures for civilian gun ownership are difficult to determine. While the number of guns in civilian hands has been on the increase, the percentage of Americans and American households who claim to own guns has been in long-term decline, according to the General Social Survey. It found that gun ownership by households has declined steadily from about half, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, down to 32% in 2015. The percentage of individual owners declined from 31% in 1985 to 22% in 2014." [9]
In 2016, newspapers reported that while guns sales were up, the number of households with at least one gun was at a 40 year low.
"An analysis by the [Washington Post] last year found that the average American gun owner owns about eight firearms, double that in the 1990s. Similarly, a CBS News poll from March found that about 20% of gun owners owned 10 or more guns." [10]
"when people know I have a gun, they're probably less likely to attack me!"
but, in fact, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded:
"After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures." [11]
So, whether more people are dissuaded is not established but it is clear that if people do attack you when they know you have a gun, they are far more likely to shoot you than if you didn't.
PRO finishes with a series of unsupported claims:
most gun crimes happened in "gun free" zones! [Need stats on this but this seems like baloney.]
the soulless dictators of Afghanistan banned guns to control people. [This claim needs documentation but also link to thesis: Is PRO arguing that the US-backed Afghan govt. ought not to disarm the Taliban & other insurgent peoples?]
Nazi Germany disarmed the Jews, advancing the Holocaust. [Politifact rates this claim as FALSE] [12]
I see you have already replied. I will read and reply shortly. Here is my actual R1 argument which you may feel free to respond to, ignore, or treat as forfeit. I appreciate your indulgence of my silly misstep.
Hey- Apologies, but I misposted a James Dickey poem here which was meant for an animal cloning debate. My argument for this debate is not yet ready but I will offer it here in Comments when it is. I will not object if you choose to treat this round as forfeit. Again, sorry for the mess-up.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:PRO uses super solid statistics well sourced and well linked. CON never explains why sexual roleplay is an apt prism for international diplomacy. Sovereign nations seldom fuck even figuratively and simulated violence, humiliation, domination seems like an obviously terrible model for maintaining international peace and prosperity- almost the opposite of useful model really. But once we disregard the metaphor, CON has no case remaining. PRO wins args, sources, conduct.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: I really would have liked to have seen Whiteflame's argument. I imagine it might have been super good. Alas, the full forfeit. That's core pond duct!
oral means "by mouth, related to the mouth" An oral hygienist cleans your teeth. An oral exam in school should always be a verbal exam. Oral sex is a blow job.etc.
Yes, the US Food & Drug Administration lists sweet flag as unpalatable by humans, a poison and carcinogenic. Ingestion pretty consistently causes humans to vomit. It is not used as a cure for stuttering and should not be used as a cure for stuttering unless death is viewed as an acceptable alternative.
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 instigates a big, extraordinary claim refuting the present consensus view of Sumerian history and archeology. PRO’s R1 is little more than a statement of personal belief based on visions.
CON points out that no evidence has been presented nor any reason why one hypothetical supernatural explanation should be preferred to another.
PRO ignores CON, offers a series of quotes unconnected to thesis, and finishes with Sumerian mythology.
CON extends ignored arguments and points out that both quotes and Sumerian myths undermined PRO’s undefined, monotheistic God.
ARGUMENTS to CON since PRO presented scant evidence and never connected to thesis.
SOURCES to CON. PRO
+quotes an economist (non-Sumer expert) out of context, ignoring that the website refutes PRO’s case.
+links to a very generic list of scientists which in no way justifies claims that some scientists were inspired by unscientific sources.
+Adds a bunch of unconnected quotes, 3 without citation
However, PRO finishes with two good sources properly cited
CONDUCT to CON
PRO ignored CON’s counterargument entirely which is poor conduct and at heart, the opposite of debate.
What makes the kkk "right-wing"? Wikipedia, for one.
"Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system"."
They supported democrats, who are left-wing.
Democrat/Republican are party labels that don't necessarily correspond to left-wing/right-wing archetypes. The Klan is pretty exclusively all about the politics of human hierarchies which makes the Klan right-wing by definition, whether or not they voted or who for.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:Per PRO's setup- . Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
PRO violated the prohibition vs. FF's, therefore automatic loss.
Args to CON per CON's recommendation. Conduct to Con for forfeits
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 forfeits three of four rounds
I'm no defender of antifa but I make a big distinction between wrong-headed college kids and right-wing terrorists. No murder vs lots of murder (22 this week) seems like an essential dividing line.
HI Jane- I know we've debated a similar topic before. I think it was both of our first DART debates. I like the topic & have just been fielding some similar arguments in another debate. Any objection to me taking this one?
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 FFs 75% of debate.
If repeated, I think this works better as an unrated debate topic.
hunh. In the cited debate, dsjpk5 decides, "This is poor conduct." who first did the patented pinkfreud08 "That is poor conduct!"? Because that exclamation point makes all the difference.
Have u seen Gus Van Sant’s “Elephant?” I recommend it. A sort of fictional retelling of Columbine. There’s a scene where the shooters quietly make out in the shower just before arming themselves. I think if the two were in love - each trying to impress the other by cold disaffection- they make a kind of perverse sense. I was in love like that at about their age in about the same time and place. We weren’t inspired by violence, but I certainly did many foolish and illegal things only to impress him. I certainly understand the allure of some rite or event that says, “its you and me alone and fuck all else fuck even death so long as u r there “
The Smiths have that line
If a double decker bus crashes into us
To die by your side
Is such a wonderful way to die
And if a ten ton truck
Kills the both of us
To die by your side
Well the pleasure the privilege is mine
BLM and Feminists are grass roots and good, certainly. I have done a debate where I had to argue just that: the good BLM has done. I, for one, would struggle to argue the same for ANTIFA.
Debate #666
https://www.debateart.com/debates/666/the-movie-braveheart-ought-to-be-renamed
I might also consider making "Braveheart" vs. "Gladiator" but I'd still mostly argue historical accuracy.
intercourse, at last
Have you considered that the word radical means the same thing as "grassroots"?
Wiktionary:
From French radical, from Late Latin radicalis (“of or pertaining to the root, having roots, radical”), from Latin radix (“root”); see radix.
Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
"His beliefs are radical."
I don't think that an argument "radical movements are inevitably good" would fly so I wouldn't defending every grassroots movement. American White Supremacists are certainly radical and grassroots but there nothing inevitably good about White Supremacists, perhaps even nothing good at all.
I have defended ANTIFA from the charge of terrorism but this resolution would be hard to falsify: has ANTIFA done any good, really? If Proud Boys, etc. were left alone to continue to march and occasionally murder in (Western U.S.) liberal enclaves they would sooner be seen for what they are: violent white supremacist thugs. By creating a (very occasionally) violent counter-force of (mostly lesbian) teenagers, ANTIFA gives FOX ground to stand with the white supremecists, to democracy's (somewhat) increased peril.
Good topic- I've not seen this discussed before on this site. Welcome!
PRO's R1 source list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Closest_approaches
https://www.mars-one.com/faq/technology/how-does-the-mars-base-communicate-with-earth
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7485
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_resources
https://www.space.com/nasa-moon-2024-return-cost-revealed.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2020_mission_fact_sheets.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX
@RM
Thx, boss. I’m glad u took this one on!
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 concedes. Conduct to PRO, all other points to CON
CON's R2 sources:
https://time.com/5656223/germany-recession-implications-economy-outlook/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/trump-said-to-delay-auto-tariffs-amid-eu-japan-trade-talks
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-lowest-birth-rates-in-the-world.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/many-worldwide-oppose-more-migration-both-into-and-out-of-their-countries/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_German_federal_election
CON's R1 sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/save
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Europe
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: full fungus forfeit. As pinkfrond would say, “That’s spore conduct!”
So immunity is usually offered to one perp in order to get a bigger perp, right? Do admins have any power of legal immunity? Why are they offering that immunity to victims? In exchange for what? Is there some recent irl example u could point to?
Welcome. Nice topic.
I thought it said goats for a second there.
naw, frankie. All r welcome, however weak in reason.
Welcome newbie!
I like this topic a lot. let’s have more like this
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 to Pro for concession. Balance to CON for concession
I want to do one that’s Mars colony first vs Moon colony first
Now that is funny- reading Dickey for Miranda is funny but also I assumed there was some scene in Hamilton where someone was kept repeating "objection" which seems not only plausible but also some dim memory of "1776." Coupled with the misposts our incompetence is virtually resonating.
I take it that is a "Hamilton" reference which I regretfully admit to having not yet seen.
Below is the text of CON R1 argument missing due to a mispost by CON. PRO is free to ignore this argument but CON includes it here by way of ammends and demonstration of full faith effort. Thanks to readers for their indulgence.
Thanks Lover12343!
DEFINITIONS
A gun is a "weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise." [1]
A ban is "an official or legal prohibition." [2]
Stupid is "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." [3]
RESOLUTION: Gun Bans are Stupid
PRO's resolution lacks any kind of specifics- no nations or law-making bodies are specified. No specific laws or restrictions are identified. CON is forced to conclude that PRO opposes all and every prohibition on firearms no matter the place or context or situation.
As instigator, the Burden of Proof is on PRO to show that any and all gun bans demonstrate poor intelligence no matter the situation.
CON's CASE:
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the principal architect of 9/11 were to request that a shipment of 50 AK-47s be delivered to his cell in Guantanamo, PRO must either demonstrate how it would be unintelligent for camp commander US Navy Capt. John Fisher to deny Mohammed's request (since such denial would be an official prohibition and therefore, a ban) or admit at least some gun bans are sensible in some contexts and situations.
PRO has cast the resolution far too wide and must now defend, retract, or limit the argument.
PRO's CASE:
PRO claims gun bans increase violent crimes and uses. PRO cites one piece of evidence and that evidence is false.
'Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation! "
PRO is citing an opinion piece written by the NRA. PRO does not specify which weapons ban but the article indicates 1989: [4]
"After its 1989 ban, California's murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. "
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 came into effect on Jan 1, 1990. [5]
The FBI Uniform Crime Records show:
Year Population Murder
1990 29,760,021 3,553
1991 30,380,000 3,859
1992 30,867,000 3,921
1993 31,211,000 4,096
1994 31,431,000 3,703
1995 31,589,000 3,531 [6]
the overall homicide numbers went up until 1994 but the murder rate actually held steady as early as 1992:
Year Population Murder
1990 29,760,021 11.9
1991 30,380,000 12.7
1992 30,867,000 12.7
1993 31,211,000 13.1
1994 31,431,000 11.8
1995 31,589,000 11.2 [6]
The NRA and PRO claim that CA murder rate increased 26% in the 5 years after passing assault weapons legislation. But FBI records show the murder rate per 100,000 actually declined by 1% in 1994 from the 1990 rate. The NRA is forced to stop reporting after 5 years because CA homicide rates declined significantly over the next couple of decades, down by more than half. Then the NRA claims:
"California banned more guns in January 2000 and murder has since averaged 12% higher than the national rate." [4]
But the FBI reports say that the murder rate per 100,000 has continued to decline and is now down around the national average. [7]
Year CA US
1996: 9.1 7.4
2000: 6.1 5.5
2005: 6.5 5.6
2010: 4.8 4.8
2014: 4.4 4.4 [7]
By 2010, CA's murder rate and the US murder rate were the same according to the FBI. By 2014, when the NRA made this claim, CA & US murder rates were still the same. Both of the NRA's claims deliberately distort the State of California's successes. Since California banned assault rifles 30 years ago, the murder rate has dropped by almost two-thirds.
Let's note that the NRA as source of crime data has been shown to be deliberately misleading in pursuit of self-interest. CON requests that we disregard the NRA as a reliable source of information.
According to the FBI, PRO's claim:
"the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation!"
is the opposite of the truth. PRO's claim that guns reduce crime stands unsupported.
PRO argues that guns are only tools. The point seems to be that many tools are potentially dangerous but aren't banned.
CON counters that screwdrivers and hammers are tools with much utility beyond their potential for violence. What utility does a gun offer except for violence?
CON counters that screwdrivers and hammers are designed to maximize constructive functions. An AK-47's primary advantage over other guns is that it goes a long time without jamming:
"The AK-47 was designed to be a simple, reliable fully automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, using mass production methods that were state of the art in the Soviet Union during the late 1940s. The AK-47 uses a long stroke gas system that is generally associated with great reliability in adverse conditions. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle." [8]
AK-47's are designed to fire many times without needing to be cleaned- which ought not to be significant for hunting or self-defense but could be a decisive factor in a longer running fire-fight- a military engagement, for example, or mass murdering while police try to stop you.
In any case, many tools are commonly and appropriately banned under many circumstances. A pressure-cooker bomb is only a tool but pressure-cooker bombs are appropriately banned from a wide variety of venues- airplanes, subways, kindergarten classrooms, etc.
Since pressure-cooker bombs and AK-47's are designed for the same utility (maximum human carnage) what logic bans pressure-cookers but not AK-47's in the same venues and circumstances?
PRO argues that increases in gun ownership have reduced crime rate since 1991.
"As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half."
PRO is giving us more data from the NRA here but I think we all agree that violent crime is way down but can PRO establish that gun ownership is way up? According to Wikipedia:
"Accurate figures for civilian gun ownership are difficult to determine. While the number of guns in civilian hands has been on the increase, the percentage of Americans and American households who claim to own guns has been in long-term decline, according to the General Social Survey. It found that gun ownership by households has declined steadily from about half, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, down to 32% in 2015. The percentage of individual owners declined from 31% in 1985 to 22% in 2014." [9]
In 2016, newspapers reported that while guns sales were up, the number of households with at least one gun was at a 40 year low.
"An analysis by the [Washington Post] last year found that the average American gun owner owns about eight firearms, double that in the 1990s. Similarly, a CBS News poll from March found that about 20% of gun owners owned 10 or more guns." [10]
PRO argues that
"when people know I have a gun, they're probably less likely to attack me!"
but, in fact, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded:
"After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures." [11]
So, whether more people are dissuaded is not established but it is clear that if people do attack you when they know you have a gun, they are far more likely to shoot you than if you didn't.
PRO finishes with a series of unsupported claims:
most gun crimes happened in "gun free" zones! [Need stats on this but this seems like baloney.]
the soulless dictators of Afghanistan banned guns to control people. [This claim needs documentation but also link to thesis: Is PRO arguing that the US-backed Afghan govt. ought not to disarm the Taliban & other insurgent peoples?]
Nazi Germany disarmed the Jews, advancing the Holocaust. [Politifact rates this claim as FALSE] [12]
PRO has yet to prove gun bans are stupid.
[1]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/gun
[2]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ban
[3]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/stupid
[4]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BzuczEhl3JgJ:https://s-www.gale.com/resources-for-students/gun-control/ban-on-assault-weapons-would-not-reduce-crime&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0
[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
[6]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
[7]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership
[10]http://money.com/money/4389610/gun-ownership-low/
[11]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
[12]https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/
I see you have already replied. I will read and reply shortly. Here is my actual R1 argument which you may feel free to respond to, ignore, or treat as forfeit. I appreciate your indulgence of my silly misstep.
Hey- Apologies, but I misposted a James Dickey poem here which was meant for an animal cloning debate. My argument for this debate is not yet ready but I will offer it here in Comments when it is. I will not object if you choose to treat this round as forfeit. Again, sorry for the mess-up.
oromagi
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:PRO uses super solid statistics well sourced and well linked. CON never explains why sexual roleplay is an apt prism for international diplomacy. Sovereign nations seldom fuck even figuratively and simulated violence, humiliation, domination seems like an obviously terrible model for maintaining international peace and prosperity- almost the opposite of useful model really. But once we disregard the metaphor, CON has no case remaining. PRO wins args, sources, conduct.
oromagi
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: I really would have liked to have seen Whiteflame's argument. I imagine it might have been super good. Alas, the full forfeit. That's core pond duct!
I’m so disappointed that CON want offered. I’ve been wanting to research these claims
I have a cousin named Margie so I’m good. Lots of people call me orogami. Somebody just called u speedwagon which i also like
Hi crossed.
remind me to never borrow a toothbrush from you.
oral means "by mouth, related to the mouth" An oral hygienist cleans your teeth. An oral exam in school should always be a verbal exam. Oral sex is a blow job.etc.
Yes, the US Food & Drug Administration lists sweet flag as unpalatable by humans, a poison and carcinogenic. Ingestion pretty consistently causes humans to vomit. It is not used as a cure for stuttering and should not be used as a cure for stuttering unless death is viewed as an acceptable alternative.
Welcome back, boat
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 instigates a big, extraordinary claim refuting the present consensus view of Sumerian history and archeology. PRO’s R1 is little more than a statement of personal belief based on visions.
CON points out that no evidence has been presented nor any reason why one hypothetical supernatural explanation should be preferred to another.
PRO ignores CON, offers a series of quotes unconnected to thesis, and finishes with Sumerian mythology.
CON extends ignored arguments and points out that both quotes and Sumerian myths undermined PRO’s undefined, monotheistic God.
ARGUMENTS to CON since PRO presented scant evidence and never connected to thesis.
SOURCES to CON. PRO
+quotes an economist (non-Sumer expert) out of context, ignoring that the website refutes PRO’s case.
+links to a very generic list of scientists which in no way justifies claims that some scientists were inspired by unscientific sources.
+Adds a bunch of unconnected quotes, 3 without citation
However, PRO finishes with two good sources properly cited
CONDUCT to CON
PRO ignored CON’s counterargument entirely which is poor conduct and at heart, the opposite of debate.
What makes the kkk "right-wing"? Wikipedia, for one.
"Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system"."
They supported democrats, who are left-wing.
Democrat/Republican are party labels that don't necessarily correspond to left-wing/right-wing archetypes. The Klan is pretty exclusively all about the politics of human hierarchies which makes the Klan right-wing by definition, whether or not they voted or who for.
Sounds like a debate to me.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:Per PRO's setup- . Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
PRO violated the prohibition vs. FF's, therefore automatic loss.
Args to CON per CON's recommendation. Conduct to Con for forfeits
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 forfeits three of four rounds
I'm no defender of antifa but I make a big distinction between wrong-headed college kids and right-wing terrorists. No murder vs lots of murder (22 this week) seems like an essential dividing line.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1075/antifa-is-equivalent-to-the-kkk
Welcome! Interesting topic about which I know very little. Any objection to me taking up CON on this?
HI Jane- I know we've debated a similar topic before. I think it was both of our first DART debates. I like the topic & have just been fielding some similar arguments in another debate. Any objection to me taking this one?
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 FFs 75% of debate.
If repeated, I think this works better as an unrated debate topic.
hunh. In the cited debate, dsjpk5 decides, "This is poor conduct." who first did the patented pinkfreud08 "That is poor conduct!"? Because that exclamation point makes all the difference.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
75% FF "That's poor conduct!"