The Second Amendment should be abolished

FF

forfeit

Forfeited

FF

Forfeiture

Concession.

Full forfeit

FF, pro's case wholly dropped.

Con opens by implying that law abiding citizens don't shoot people, and their argument is that criminals (many of whom do shoot people) will be less scared of law abiding citizens if the 2nd amendment is abolished. Additionally, leisurely activities like trap shooting and those participated in the boy scouts might be less enjoyable, or treated disproportionately to other sports.

Pro brought Cons first point into question pointing out that the role of government probably shouldn't be the promotion of fear, which seems reasonable. Cons second point is self defeating as it is common knowledge the US constitution does not mention any sports.

Pro's case suggests the government should ban guns, which requires abolishing the 2nd amendment. They justify the imposition, implying that it will lead to immortality and there will be no more murder, suicide etc... As well, "I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others" So given the context it appears pro contends the guns with no recreational value or practical utility should be prohibited by the government. Being in reference to the Constitution of the USA, I'm going to assume that the people in that jurisdiction would generally be aware that some guns are already put out of production by law, and the 2nd amendment does not mandate that the government give people arms, so Pro's motivation for repeal is questionable.

Con forfeits, and Pro wins by superior conduct.

Full forfeit.

Con states his case, Pro states his case, and rebuts what Con said. Con can't defend his points and forfeits which is poor conduct. Pro doesn't forfeit R2, thus keeping his conduct mark intact.

Con FF half of the debate, that's poor conduct