Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
9
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#4107
You pick the topic, I pick the side.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
Athias
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Description
The topic must be short in nature, so that it can be debated in 4(minus preparatory one) rounds of A THOUSAND words each. Also, in round 1 you write topic, and I respond with whether I will choose to go pro or con. then in round 2 onwards, you start supporting your points. In case I choose to go pro, I will start debating by round 1, but I will simply write "extend" in round 5 con's round. If I go con, you will write your argument as pro in round 2 and we continue normally.
Round 1
I am CON. Topic will be announced by opponent.
The subject is "The Rights Delineated in the Second Amendment (of the Bill of Rights) Should Not Be Infracted and/or Transmuted Despite Recent Mass Shootings."
I waive my first round argument so that my opponent and I can have the following four rounds in their entirety to present our arguments. Definitions and stipulations can be presented at the beginning of Round Two.
Round 2
I support that ; The Rights Delineated in the Second Amendment (of the Bill of Rights) SHOULD Be Infracted and/or Transmuted Despite Recent Mass Shootings, as I am con.
When everyone has access to guns, EVERYONE could be a criminal. And this has been proven in the large number of mass shootings, domestic gun violence, hate crimes etc.
While it could be valid critisicm that, even if we made guns illegal, bad guys would still have the means to acquire them, I believe it is ultimately wrong,because;
As Ben Shapiro described, and I am paraphrasing, when you make a product illegal, the number of people that use it are now doing something illegal in 100% of the cases. However, the actual number of instances of this crime diminishes greatly, as it is much harder to find the desired product, even if you are a criminal. Makes sense, 'cause now black market traders are forced to sell their products undercover, at a greater price and commiting a punishable offence.
Opening Argument:
As Pro, I affirm the proposition delineated in the first round. The surge in mass shootings over the last few years has evoked a nationally propagated narrative which seeks to qualify, regulate, and even prohibit the purchase and distribution of firearms to the civilian population. The logic is by prohibiting the access to firearms among civilians, the criminal use of firearms can be quashed presuming of course all use is prohibited. This narrative surrounding the push to undermine the 2nd amendment neglects the following:
- Property Rights: the campaign to prohibit the civilian purchase and use of firearms lacks empirical evidence that criminal use is strongly associated with ordinary civilian use.
- A majority of firearm related deaths are suicides.
- High risk factors in events that produce more death aren't prohibited.
- Insufficient evidence to substantiate stringent firearm regulations/prohibitions = fewer deaths.
We'll explore this as we proceed further into the debate.
Round 3
Forfeited
Rebuttal:
When everyone has access to guns, EVERYONE could be a criminal.
Even without access to a gun, anyone "could be a criminal." It is your onus to demonstrate how access and possession of a firearm necessarily implicates criminality.
And this has been proven in the large number of mass shootings, domestic gun violence, hate crimes etc.
No, it hasn't, especially considering that the majority of firearm related injuries/fatalities have been self-inflicted, the source for which is provided above in Round Two.
However, the actual number of instances of this crime diminishes greatly, as it is much harder to find the desired product, even if you are a criminal.
Neither you, nor Ben Shapiro has quantified how crime diminishes in the advent of limited or no access to a firearm, much less demonstrate how mere possession/access/ownership of a firearm influences crime at all.
Since my opponent has forfeited Round Three, I'm simply going to extend the arguments I made in Round Two.
Round 4
Forfeited
I extend all arguments.
Round 5
Forfeited
I extend all arguments. Pro has forfeited three out of five rounds. Vote well.
"What about Stoicism vs Hedonism?
The focus could be on which leads to a better, more fulfilling life."
I wouldn't be able to provide a sufficient argument for either as to which leads to "better."
"Or WW2.
Hitler vs Stalin?
Who was more evil between the two."
Moral relativism does not extend logical or even consistent conclusions. Therefore I'd have to pass.
What else you got?
Nice!
What about Stoicism vs Hedonism?
The focus could be on which leads to a better, more fulfilling life.
Or WW2.
Hitler vs Stalin?
Who was more evil between the two.
Want to take me on? I subscribe to individualist philosophy so my views on politics, economics, philosophy, history, religion, etc. reflects said subscription. Controversial subjects can be fun I suppose; artistic debates as well. I never enter a debate based on the subject alone, however. So it will depend on the proposition of the debate you intend to instigate.
What subjects do you normally prefer to debate?
I came through in the clutch.
Ok, just leave round 5 empty in your part. (so that we both write 4 arguments each).
You should publish an argument for the first round declaring that you're CON. I'll then publish an argument proposing the subject. Don't worry, I won't choose a subject that's difficult to argue. Though, I will need some time to think about it.
I choose con. Oh, and please put a conservative debate so I have to go against my own belief lol.
but as i said, not too big of a topic, as it is only 1000 words and for fun
You miscalculated. Since you're the instigator of this debate, you are the one who must publish first, regardless of the subject matter. Would you like to take a gamble and choose a side, and allow me to choose the subject so that we don't waste two rounds figuring out who's arguing what?