I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I consider saying “source please” multiple times in a debate as disrespectful when it is used on its own without any other language as a dissmissive argument - yes absolutely.

If you had said: “I have looked for a this data, and haven’t been able to find anything: pro must source this claim in order for it to be accepted”, that would have been fine. Better yet - if you had found the source material of the claim he was referring to and refuted it directly”.

It’s not disrespectful enough for me to award a conduct violation for - but enough for me to mention.

I am also assuming that due to you completely ignoring everything else I said, that you are now accepting what I posted for arguments, and my lack of bias.

Ok, DM me when you would like me to create it.

so u consider
"source please" as disrespectful?? LMAO
He put no source to his "skyrocketing" claim so I couldn't confirm it was valid. I even added "please". Cmon. You have more common sense than that.

“If you literally look at all the rounds you can clearly see con barely rebuttaled any of my points.”

And if you look at my RfD - I clearly explain in detail why I felt his arguments were not rebutted by the points you raised.

“WTF? How did i have poor conduct in the last round. .”

You started becoming snarky by use of “source please”, which I found irritating and overly disrespectful - I didn’t penalize you for this - I was just warning you not to keep doing it in the future.

“Rediculous and unfortunate bias vote who can't vote without implementing his progressive views into it”

No - this is solely on your arguments being bad - and I explained how and why in my RfD. I’m sorry you don’t like being criticized - but I absolutely and repeatedly vote on conservative points when they are argued better.

This includes another gun control debate, by you, where I voted in support of your position:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/206

Please do not confuse your arguments not being good - with my opinions interfering with my ability to vote - as the facts are absolutely not on your side on this one.

"Absolutely, it is my best topic. Were you looking to debate me on it?"

That's nice to know. Yeah, I would like to present an argument on this sometime and see how it stands. It will probably take me at least a week before I have time to commit though.

"conduct deteriorated in the last post, initiated by pro."

WTF? How did i have poor conduct in the last round. Rediculous and unfortunate bias vote who can't vote without implementing his progressive views into it.

"pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con"

If you literally look at all the rounds you can clearly see con barely rebuttaled any of my points.

Absolutely, it is my best topic. Were you looking to debate me on it?

Would you consider doing another one of these sometime?

“Your vote was biased af”.

Thanks for the valuable and detailed feedback.

Unfortunately, the vote was placed on the arguments you made, not the overall validity of your position or the views I personally hold. As I explained in my RfD: you made a set of logical errors that lost you the debate, as regardless of the validity of your position, you mostly deflected the points raised to a more generalized argument about crime in general - specifically a great deal of your argument is predicated on the assertion that people murdering with guns today - would all buy knives or illegal guns tomorrow: this meant a number of the issues your opponent made were generally unrefuted.

wow your vote was biased af, so unfortunate to see it.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for decision:The topic I am pro gun: Change my mind is a difficult one to argue. It seems like both sides were arguing whether gun ownership was more of a benefit to American society than a negative, that is what i am basing my decision on. I give my vote to Our_Boat_is_Right because because he took an over all approach to guns and therefore seemed to make the more convincing argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision.
************************************************************************

Close debate.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: reukinche // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.

>Reason for Decision:
Spelling and grammar: I didn't see any mistakes which reduced readability.
Sources: Con used one or two arguably partisan sources (CNN and Vox), but all of Pro's sources were partisan.
Arguments: While Pro's arguments had some flaws, some of which Con pointed out, Con's arguments hinged on partisan sources.
Conduct: Pro forfeited first, and Con forfeited in response. However, conduct on both sides could have been better.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision. The voter also fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. There is not comparison between the debaters in terms of source quality. The voter can recast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the key arguments of the debate to produce a verdict and then by comparing (or making a comparative statement re:) the quality of each debater's sources. Furthermore the voter does not properly evaluate the conduct point.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to con

>Reason for Decision:
Arguments:
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.
Conduct:
Pro has very obviously not read some of Con's sources. More than that, he's constructed and argued against his own narrative based upon what he imagines the sources to be about. This is dishonest
Sources:
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.

>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments and sources are sufficiently explained but conduct is not. In order to award a conduct point, one side must forfeit at least one round or have excessively rude conduct
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: The sources used by Con (particularly Vox) were very biased and opinionated, rather than actual authoritative sources. Con also opens his arguments by claiming that gun control has been effective at reducing crime in other countries, yet provides no real evidence to support this, while ignoring high-crime nations with strict gun control like Mexico.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision. The voter also fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. There is not comparison between the debaters in terms of source quality. The voter can recast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the key arguments of the debate to produce a verdict and then by comparing (or making a comparative statement re:) the quality of each debater's sources.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro for sources, 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Arguments are tied because pro was leading till last round but then forfeited.
Sources go to Pro for he gave unbiased sources unlike Con who kept stating notably left wing sources, such as Vox and CNN.
Conduct to con because pro forfeited.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not need to justify points which were not awarded. The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. Site voting policy requires the voter to "explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter does not do this. Conduct points were sufficiently justified. The vote can cast a new, sufficient vote by assessing one source directly, by comparing the quality of sources between debaters, and by explaining how that source impacted the debate.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mharman // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: Con states that more guns does not mean less crime and that gun control does work. Con then gives sources. Pro states the exact opposite, and then gives his own sources. At the core of this debate, both sides made they're arguments, and they both gave their own statistics. This debate comes down to who's statistics were actually correct. To determine this, one must look at the sources both sides provided. Con used well-known left-wing outlets for sources, along with a college study. Pro used pro-gun sources, and a government crime report. With both sides providing biased sources, it comes down to their unbiased sources. Pro's unbiased source was the government crime report and Con's unbiased source was a Stanford University study. However, in general, a government report is more reliable than a college study. This means that Pro has better sources, and thus, a better argument.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. However, the vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

Ram's RFD, part 3:

These were the three main arguments raised, though there were a couple of main offshoots (and a deteriorating debate) which were ancillary at best, given the issues above. I will note: that pro argued pros claims were “correlation is not causation” then inferred correlation is causation in his next point, he also pointed out that a single study is not proof, after citing a single example is proof in the post before. After the second set of responses the debate was really poor on both sides, but didn’t factor in to my weighting as the opening arguments were strong and unrefuted. Both sides could have done better.

Ram's RFD, part 2:

1.) Con argues that crime doesn’t decrease with more guns. Pro dismisses this as a flawed NCVS study, but looking at cons source, this doesn’t seem to be the case: thus pros argument here is invalid, con goes on to site another study (his original link had multiple cited studies) which was dismissed as only a single study, which is a very poor rebuttal. 1-0 Con.
2.) Con argues that mass shootings occur because of the glorification of guns, and the volume of guns in the US, this seems reasonable on its face. Pro shifts again to crime in general and doesn’t offer a clear rebuttal of this position. He then appears to blame gun free zones - without offering a causal reason or argument to support this position, and offers solution. As a result pros response was more a deflection than a rebuttal and leaves cons original argument unrefuted. 2-0 Con.
3.) Con argues (with a source) that gun control actually works, citing a vox article (which itself cites research), that gun control actually works. Pro dismisses this as mostly Australia, and mostly revolving around crime rates which were already falling - but that isn’t what the source is talking about - the source cites multiple countries law changes before and after various controls were enacted. As a result, pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con. 3-0 Con.

Ram's RFD, part 1:

Good use of sources both sides. However after writing my vote, I’m giving sources to con. Both his sources fully demonstrated cons point, and were not just individual data points, but covered most of his position in detail. Pro didn’t read these sources, and attacked a straw man of what he thought they said: which effectively gave Con the win on arguments. The Stanford example was similar. The sources here fully underpinned cons entire argument, and I felt they were incredibly effective. Whilst pro backed up individual small claims - nothing he cited was as broad or as solid in underpinned his argument as these from con. And as such sources gave cons initial argument a rock solid foundation that was almost unassailable - whereas pros did not.
Pro forfeited a round, which warrants a loss of conduct. Conduct deteriorated in the last post - instigated by pro - but I would warn both sides about such snarky behavior.
Arguments (in no particular order)
In general con talks about gun crime, gun crime stats, etc, pro throughout attempts to shift the argument to talking about crime in general. He mentions knives and illegally acquired firearms, but makes no real attempt to show they are translatable. IE, everyone commiting a crime with a gun today, would commit one with a knife or illegal gun tomorrow. Leaving that part unargued makes the shift to crime in general invalid.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

My vote was based upon a honest and objective appreciation of the discourse.

I'm guessing that the moderators appreciation was somewhat subjective.

It would be a shame if that were the case.

1) I fail to see who the moderator is quoting. (Out of context).

2) "Contenders rationality" was simply an observation of their willingness to stick to the parameters set by the proposition. In comparison to the instigators keenness to stray from these parameters. I think it fair to regard this as a notable difference in conduct.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and Conduct

>Reason for Decision: Instigator was keen to stray from the limits imposed by the proposition.
Contenders rationality gives them the edge in terms of conduct.

>Reason for Mod Action: On arguments, the voter fails to survey and weigh the main arguments. On conduct, the voter fails to explain how a debater's misconduct was "excessively rude" and fails to reference instances of misconduct. Moreover, it is not at all clear how rationality is an issue of conduct--i.e. civility. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the main arguments of the debate and by identifying cases of misconduct and then explaining how any misconduct was excessive. Excessive means extreme or very frequent. Alternatively, the voter could chose not to award conduct points and focus on making their argument points sufficient.
************************************************************************

sry, was gonna post, but then i ran out of time right before i was gonna submit it.

IDC about gun homicides. Overall homicide is what matters. In that case, like in England, homicides spike up after the ban.
You also did not rebuttal to any of my points.

The least you can do is show a little decency. You know very well it wouldn't affect you if you posted it a little later. Why would you do that? I've been civil this whole time, and you are taking debates/politics personally.

wow, what a d**k move.

lol, no

Please only post your argument in the final day. I have too much homework and other debates going on right now.

If this is true then the same is true for DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses). According to the CDC, there is anywhere between 500k and 3 million defensive gun uses annually by law abiding citizens who have licenses for guns. I couldn't find a direct source for this data, however, I did find many news sources saying that exactly. Forbes, NPR, Washington Post are some. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/