American Schools should have armed guards
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro must prove that assigning armed guards to all schools is a good idea and why this is more effective than any other form of protection.
Con must prove it isn’t a good idea and that either the situation should remain the same or we should implement another form of protection.
Burden of proof is shared
This debate is directly about tackling school shootings.
I did a video for this, not sure if I will post it, but if I do check the comments and it will be there in 24 hours. Essentially pro argued that school shootings would be less frequent and less severe with armed guards. Con argued it was impractical and the logic could be applied even to our own homes or businesses and pro counters that those business owners could already choose what level of risk they want to take. Con does not respond to this counter. Con also argues that a better approach would be gun control, but pro counters that gun control is useless because it can be maneuvered around. Con does not respond to this counter argument. I would like to see con stick to his guns a bit more, to actually expand on his arguments and use the counter rebuttals to strengthen his own position. I also thought con had the seeds to some great counter arguments in his final round, but it came too late. Ultimately pro's arguments stands and they win, but pro has some work to do also. Both debaters kept using a version of the argument "but you can get around that law", which is literally true of every law. Con also should have pointed out how disgusting pro's proposal of grown men patting down children was.
Pro's assertion seems completely impractical as correctly mentioned by con
Furthermore I would like to add to cons argument that-
Even if we have armed guards they will be unable to do anything in a large school campus, as reaching a perpetrator a few hundred meters away will take way to long for any sort of prevention of shooting, also as mentioned most school shootings are done by students, and hence an having 'armed' guards is useless, since they most likely not even try to shoot the perpetrator, and do the work of just a regular security guard.
Pro presented compelling arguments that Con failed to effectively counter, and Con lacked a clear plan beyond "Don't sell guns to the irresponsible." Pro was also the sole participant to provide sources and maintained a more professional demeanor, thereby earning the votes for better sources and conduct.
I apologise for arguing in the vote, but I do still think it's impractical as a preventative measure since-
It takes only a few milliseconds to shoot someone, and the armed guards can only react after the shooting is already done, till that time many people could've been kiled if it's a crowded area.
And why can't any regular guard frisk? also metal detectors would be way more effective.
Please vote.
Please vote.
You placed a vote which i totally respect but i don't really respect the comments you made. You said my assertion is impractical which you didn't prove and then you tried to add an argument in favor of pro which i will rebuttle but the voting section of debates isn't really the place to create a debate, it's more to indicate who did a better job rather than give your opinion.
You said they won't be able to reach the perp before the perp does the shooting but that is false. Schools are smart enough to have the guards scattered across premises instead of have them standing still at the entrance which is the only scenario i can imagine in which the perp actually gets the chance to perform the shooting. It will be impossible if the guards are scattered since they will be patrolling every single corner. I didn't actually mention this in the debate so it is technically inadmissible but you brought up this subject, not con. The guards won't act like security ones since they have guns which security guards don't possess and as i said will not hesitate to pull the trigger. A school shooter is a major criminal and will be treated as one. If the guards spots the shooter shooting at a bunch of kids, he will not wait for the police to arrive, he will get the job done even if that involves shooting at the perp and injuring them.
However as i stated, the perp won't get the chance to enter the premises since there are multiple guards scattered across the school, patrolling every single corner looking for suspicious students.
I also stated that the guards will sometimes frisk the students and you can't possibly hide an AR from the person frisking you
---
---
---
Please vote.
I encourage everyone to vote.
Our schools should have airport-style security. It works with airports; there hasn't been a terrorist attack since.
Also I don't think you are an American, but I will let you in on a secret. In most states, schools do have armed guards called "resource officers" .
"burden of proof is scared"
Maybe change that to shared, unless you meant scared
Lol
One kid at my school tried to do that with a gun he brought from home. A lot of kids were running in the hall that day, but fortunately, he was there to stop them from hurting someone.