Instigator / Con
28
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#465
All guns should be banned for civilians
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
Alec
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
6
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Rules to this debate:
1: The BoP is shared.
2: I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point.
3: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.
Round 1
Because of the rules, I waive this round.
Forfeited
Round 2
Since my opponent didn't publish an argument, I think I'll publish one.
Guns provide protection against criminals and the potential of a tyrannical government.
Guns also reduce homicide. Whenever an area bans guns, law abiding citizens turn in their guns but criminals still hang on to their guns. Can you imagine what happens if a criminal is armed and a law abiding citizen(LAC) isn't? The LAC gets robbed or shot or both. If they try to call the police, they are shot. DC placed huge restrictions on guns in 1976 and their homicide rate stayed constant at best and skyrocketed at worse (https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515c5469e2015392131038970b-800wi). This means that gun control does nothing to stop homicide and may even increase homicide rates. When they repealed their tough gun laws, the homicide rate fell.
Guns are also useful in hunting, which can prevent some families from starving.
Source:
Forfeited
Round 3
Argument extended.
Forfeited
No.
I did that so I would get the last word unless there was a forfeit.
Debates structured such that the acceptor must post the first round of argumentation, however popular, aren't really good form.
There are anti gunners out there who only want guns reserved for military and police.
So basically someone has to argue against the 2nd amendment?
I'll plead the fifth!