All guns should be banned
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 31 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Rules of the debate:
1: The BoP is shared
2: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is a loss of conduct point.
Jamaica’s homicide rate in 1973, before the gun ban, was 11.5 per 100 000. In 1977, three years after the ban was enacted, murder rates nearly doubled to 19.5. By 1980 the homicide rate had nearly quadrupled to 41.7, and peaked at 59.0 per 100 000 people in 2007. In summary, after having banned civilian ownership of guns, Jamaica experienced a near-fourfold increase in its homicide rate within a period of only 6 years. And the homicide rate has remained exorbitantly high ever since.
Banning all guns is the most reasonable solution to gun violence because contrary to many gun-control advocates, it isn't possible for a society to determine which people can be trusted with guns.
This argument comes down to a moral decision, is the right to bear arms more important than the right to life? The answer is No.
There are non-lethal forms of self defense that can be used against criminals and guns are not a required to resist a tyrannical government
When I say all guns should be banned I am working with the assumption that all guns are confiscated from everyone, including criminals.
There are effective ways of confiscating all guns
there is no reason to believe that violence from guns won't be eliminated when all guns are removed.
Guns are not necessary for hunting so that is not a good reason not to ban them.
Pro offered a few traditional arguments with minimum effort and absolutely zero evidence to support some big claims. Con gave 4 solid supports on offense (hunting, protection, reduced rape and murder) and one well reasoned counter on defense (reduced gun violence). Combined with fair sourcing, Con's case dominates. Conduct to Con for Pro's double forfeit and tepid effort.
Pro believe that guns can be peacefully confiscated but as Con points out, criminals aren't going to be totally affected. Most firearms used in crime are unregistered, so it would be impossible to confiscate from criminals.
Cons argument that gun violence and crime overall have risen in places with gun bans is excellent proof that a ban won't work. Here, Con also gets sources.
Conduct to Con for the Forfeit.
Con efficiently explained how guns reduce homicide rates and protect from rape, which pro dropped both of those points. Con also refuted the point that other forms of self-defense than guns are useful. Con also said and refuted the point from pro by pointing out criminals will get guns either way, so if you ban them they will get it illegally. Con is the only one that sourced, and pro did not back up his claims with any sources and skipped over some of pro's arguments which were sourced. Congrats Alec for smashing another liberal.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Pros only argument appears to be that gun control is extreme - his opening round seemed to be an assertion that they should be banned rather than providing reasons. Likewise his own only other argument is that non lethal weapons can be used.
Cons argument is effectively built up of statistics, and arguing that banning weapons is counter productive. He also argues that non lethal alternatives are not sufficient for defense and to mitigate the harms of a ban.
Pro simply does not offer enough in his two generic and overly simplistic rounds to over turn these described harms, and thus arguments must be given to con too.
Con used sources to back up a somewhat troll angle of 'cops need guns' and rested on this being the primary way to attack banning guns for civilians. Pro didn't dismiss this or call it debating in bad faith, instead Pro says cops don't need lethal force. Con brought up a few scenarios where tasers won't be enough and also analysed the effect of guns on rape and homicide being lower. Pro never challenges these findings or trends.
Pro forfeited 2 Rounds and was all-around lazy. Therefore conduct goes to Con as well. Pro never used a source.
The instigator did not forfeit whereas the contender did.
The instigator provided sources for his arguments whereas the contender did not.
Neither side explained their point so I don't want to give the most convincing argument to either because one only gave claims while the other gave claims with evidence. Explanation is required in order for the reader to understand clearly what you are trying to say with your claim.
Pro FF 2 rounds which is poor conduct
Yes, precisely.
Okay then.
He is an atheist who support the right wing and is for doing something for climate change.
He also believes in global warming.
Trust me, he is an atheist. I've known him for over a year from DDO.
He has not endorsed Trump, doesn't particularly like Trump, and thinks Trump is racist.
He believes in God.
He would endorse a right wing candidate before a left wing due to his stance on anything to do with socialism.
He is close to conservative but not one. He has laxer stances on abortion and doesn't particularly endorse Trump. He is also atheist.
Don't feed Omar with comments, all he does is insist on attacking you for a different opinion. Don't engage. It's not worth it and is a complete waste of time.
Instead of passing 2 Rounds why not have the first Round be for only arguments and the rest for rebuttals?
You are a conservative.
Public or private healthcare?
Immigration good or bad?
Freer-er market or more regulation?
Should America ought to value traditional American Values (Nuclear families, God etc)?
Death penalty for or against?
Should we do something about climate change?
Less or more gun control?
I disagree with this. Guns shouldn't be banned. I'm in support of better gun control, but banning all guns would create an enormous issue, including a gigantic black market beyond what we currently have.
The 2nd Amendment was so the people could defend themselves against the government. Yes, weapons have changed, but fundamentally, it is the same. I do not trust the government, as it is easily corrupted and people go with the flow because they don't realize.
I'm not conservative right now although I might be in the future.
I think for myself. I happen to agree with the Conservatives on this issue.
Disregard what I said as if I didn't tell you how it is unfair. You really are a conservative. An independent would actually know how to think for him/herself instead of being biased with what party they have allegiance to. Hell rant? Did you miss the bulk of what I said earlier? This must be you conceding that this debate has an unfair burden on your opponent.
Once again, your hell rant is off topic. However, finding anti gun people on the internet is easy.
"This is fair because Pro chose to accept."
Call it what you want but it is unfair. Telling someone to take the radical position but you are not doing the same gives more of a burden to your opponent to give a really compelling argument. When you sit on the fence with yes or no you can pick what you like which suits your narrative meanwhile the radical has to make the best argument ever and even at that point they will lose if both were comparable in debate skill.
I am still sticking that you are a conservative. I'll drop the Religious argument because your source is completely ridiculous and the claim that video made is completely out there that I can't even imagine anything can survive in lava let alone people in the core existing. It would require compelling evidence that I don't think you are capable of giving.
My stance on guns is that anyone who is not a threat to other(s) should be allowed to have any gun they want. I can defend anything more right wing then the debate title to win. This is fair because Pro chose to accept.
What is your position all guns should be allowed?
It is not fair to ask your opponent to take the most radical position and you not doing the same.