Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5062
Guns are no more fatalistic than knives thus fatalities would exist.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on topic, drop a comment.
Round 1
A very straightforward approach.
With questions and answers.
Are guns and knives used in a fatal manner?
Being that either one is fatal or can be , does it matter which instrument I use just to achieve a fatality?
If you have honest answers to all the questions so far, there really is no such thing as more fatal with one than the other. Is that true or false?
Just plain and simple. Not really much more to it than that.
I had this topic a while ago and the opposing side seemed to have blinders on deliberately rejecting the agreement.
I think I've ran off a lot individuals on this site.
I think I made a point about before guns existed, fatalities existed. The best argument the person had to make is guns are quicker or frequent choice. Cool, not up for contention on that.
So go ahead and answer those questions. If it's not much there, we can discuss another topic. This is where I give range for people to move the post from the goal.
Guns are no more fatalistic than knives
Wrong. More murders are done by guns. But thats not the end of the story. Guns also increase suicides. They also contribute to gun related accidents.
What also needs to be pointed out is that countries that ban all guns, such as Japan, have extremely low homicide rates, where countries like USA have lots of guns and lots of violence.
Round 2
"Guns are no more fatalistic than knives
Wrong. More murders are done by guns."
It's so funny I can predict you guy's arguments and what you're going to say. I can tell you are soooooo prepared with a case to make . You already have everything you want to say and rehearsed maybe just by the topic without actually reading all I said, you can't even adapt as you wasn't prepared for anything else.
I mean I posted a series a questions you didn't deal with as you had this preplanned response although it wasn't much.
"More murders are done by guns." Now what did I just say in the last round? Let's go back.
"The best argument the person had to make is guns are quicker or frequent choice."
Pretty much the point you're coming back with. More murders are done by guns or frequently done by choice of.
I say again "Cool, not up for contention on that."
I say again "Cool, not up for contention on that."
Oh let's raise the question, why is it not up for contention?
It is not what is meant by the topic. Golden nugget: when something seems too simple or obvious on its face, there's more layers to it, more to it than meeting your eye.
"If you have honest answers to all the questions so far, there really is no such thing as more fatal with one than the other. Is that true or false?"
I appreciate your own interpretation on the topic and you had a response ready to go. But now you have to actually argue against my particular position if you can.
"But thats not the end of the story. Guns also increase suicides. They also contribute to gun related accidents."
Not up for contention.
"What also needs to be pointed out is that countries that ban all guns, such as Japan, have extremely low homicide rates, where countries like USA have lots of guns and lots of violence."
So in those "low homicide rates ", what is used to commit the homicide?
Is it a gun or something else?
Do you think violence would exist without guns?
This goes back to my point.
" I made a point about before guns existed, fatalities existed."
The topic is:
"Guns are no more fatalistic than knives"
This can mean that either guns dont kill more people, or that guns dont reduce killings more than knives.
We have already seen the example of USA that has lots of guns, also has lots of homicides despite being a developed nation. USA has most of homicides among developed nations.
Do we want to become like USA or like Japan?
Round 3
"Guns are no more fatalistic than knives"
"This can mean that either guns dont kill more people, or that guns dont reduce killings more than knives."
Do you mind just asking me what it means? Instead of guessing, speculating at it. Are you that scared of refutation?
Again you evade my questions perhaps for the same fear. Just so you know not answering doesn't mean you're arguing against me. It's an indirect forfeit to disprove my case.
"We have already seen the example of USA that has lots of guns, also has lots of homicides despite being a developed nation. "
Would homicide exist without guns?
Are the two inseparable?
You not answering these questions because they hurt your position is too bad. That's the point of the debate.
It's also a good way to keep my position from being misrepresented.
Do you think somebody can't be fatally struck with a knife ?
Another good question .
"USA has most of homicides among developed nations.
Do we want to become like USA or like Japan?"
Can't speak on that.
Here's a question relevant to the topic.
Do we want to acknowledge that I can kill you with a knife as well as with a gun?
So one is not more fatal than the other. You can get no more dead than just dead.
Now that is what's meant by the topic. Just because you can't refute that, it doesn't justify you building a strawman.
Well sure both the knife and gun can kill. If that is your position, then it cannot be refuted.
Round 4
"If that is your position, then it cannot be refuted."
Ok what made you think my stance was anything else but that?
Well, I thought your stance is that guns dont kill more people than knives.
Round 5
"I think I made a point about before guns existed, fatalities existed. The best argument the person had to make is guns are quicker or frequent choice. Cool, not up for contention on that."
Tip for all .
Don't use the topic statement to dictate a person's position. But allow the person to explain their position to understand why the topic statement/question exists.
Case closed.
Yes.
Ok we're all in agreement because last time I think we weren't. I think a lot of the individuals that were on here got the heck out of dodge. Oh Mall ran them out of debate art town .