EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That there should be a right to bear arms

2 points
0 points
dpowell3543dpowell3543 (PRO)

First off, I'd like to start the debate by thanking my opponent to take the time to accept this discussion. 

So first off, I assume this is referring to American's Right to Bear Arms, since no other country was listed, so I'm going to debate on the point of Americans. In which case, let's first look at our right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This is pretty basic and is usually taught to us throughout high school and maybe in college depending on what field you go into. The purpose of this Amendment was to give the American people, not only a way to defend themselves from the dangers of the new world, but also to prevent a tyrannical system from taking hold again. In other words the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow Americans the necessary means to stand up and over throw the government if it should attempt to take away their Constitutional rights. Hence the Amendment states that the right shall not be infringed. Now, this term has been up for debate for a long time, so I will define it here.

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine: encroach on.

This simply means that it cannot be changed by anyone for any reason. But that's not what we're here to debate. We're here to debate whether or not there should be. So with definitions out of the way, let's get into it.

Section 1:
    Throughout these next sections I will go over the benefits of having the right to bear arms. The first one being self protection, which I believe is self explanatory. If someone is trying to break into your house, mug you, or kill you, you need this right so you may have a weapon with which to defend yourself from the perpetrator. So nothing needs to be said further on this.

Section 2: 
   It helps lower to overall crime rate. Now many people will be overly joyed to claim that it doesn't and they'd be very happy to debate it with you. Sometimes anyway. But statistics show that this is true. Let's compare two different countries. England and the United States.

England has 1,292,405 violent crimes in 2017, which made up only 20% of their crimes. Add the 37,443 knife crimes to that statistic as a potential violent crime and you get 1,329,848 potential violent crimes which is about 41% of all their crimes. This is not including sex offenses which can also be considered a "violent crime" in the case of rape. England has approximately 54.79 million people. Now, BBC states that the numbers are climbing every year. I couldn't find up to date statistics and I apologize for that.

The United States had only 1,247,321 violent crimes that year. Out of our population of 325.7 million. 

AS you can see, England, taking the population into consideration, has a much higher violent crime rate than the US. Our right to bear arms, is what makes this possible, because we can defend ourselves when someone tries to attack us. Take, for instance, a recent incident in Texas proves this. A man tried to rob a store with a gun, but was stopped by the armed customers in the store.

Now before I move on, I want to go ahead and debunk a major argument using logic. A lot of people say that crime will inherently go down if we ban all guns and get rid of the 2nd Amendment. This just simply isn't true. A majority of the time people say this, they're only looking at the gun violence statistics, not the overall violent crime statistics. There are many different ways to physically harm people. Look at the subway incident in China where a man managed to kill 33 and injure 100 people. With a knife.


I look forward to reading my opponent's response.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-14 11:13:31
| Speak Round
MichaelHobertTheOnlyMichaelHobertTheOnly (CON)
Thanks for posting this argument. Funny meme. I'm not sure whether I should talk to you or the judges, but we are debating each other, so I'll talk to you.

• I'm not going to debate whether or not the constitution says that you've the right to bear arms. Of course it does. But that doesn't determine whether "there should". 

Guns cause too many animal deaths, and that is just another example of humans playing god. I don't know whether you go hunting, but I can assure that every time a human does go, he brings his gun. What justifies killing animals that aren't domesticated and likely going extinct because we interrupt nature. I think we can both agree that the point here is to minimize suffering. Right? I'd bet more animals would still be alive and the ecosystem better off if guns were outlawed. 

We can both probably agree it's not the gun's that kill people, it's the person behind them. But do you really trust people like that. If there weren't already so strict gun control laws, imagine how many more deaths there would be. Sure, there is a few humans who can be trusted, but the majority of us cannot. 

And if were going off what the constitution says, why can't 13 year olds have guns, why are you required to go and get a license? These are all infringements of the second amendment.  

The country is becoming more socialist, and cctv camera's will be all over urban communities in the next decade. It's already happened in England. First step, ban guns. Second step, install security. The laws will lead to peace. 

P.S - I'm not saying which side I'm really on. I'm doing debate as sport.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-15 05:32:50
| Speak Round
dpowell3543: I've already typed up my next argument. Oh well. Anyway. On the note of the hunting, humans have been doing it since we first stepped foot on Earth. With or without guns. Overall, humans hunting hasn't affected the ecosystems all that much. As far as I know, the majority of the reasons we've caused animals to go extinct wasn't by hunting, but by destroying their homes to build ours, pollution, overharvesting and introducing invasive species. The only species that I can think of that have been affected by our hunting were the bison, the dodo bird, the white rhino and the elephants.

Return To Top | Speak Round
dpowell3543dpowell3543 (PRO)
I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. I shall now proceed to respond to their points. I am also debating this for fun, because. Why not?

Section 1: 
   My opponent brings up the point that the ecosystems would be better if humans didn't hunt and that's partially true. I cannot lie and say that there aren't poachers out there, people who go out and kill animals just to kill them or to illegally sell their body parts. But I can say that a majority of the people who do go hunting, usually do it for food. Most hunters usually bring home and eat the animal they've shot themselves or with their family, or they'll sell it to a butcher who will then turn around and sell themselves. The benefits of Capitalism. Anyway, hunting is just the circle of life, so it doesn't really affect the ecosystem all that much. Especially since we have laws and regulations limiting everyone's hunting. You can only hunt a certain animal and a certain amount of that animal at a certain time of year, usually in the fall. Not to mention, not hunting would also disrupt the ecosystem. If we stopped hunting, the populations of the animals that we hunt would grow larger than is welcome. Take deer for instance. If we stopped hunting deer, the deer population would grow out of control. There would be deer every where. And assuming we leave the predators alone, such as wolves and bears, they'll come down to eat the over abundance of deer. So now we have deer, wolves and bears running around every where. But outside of that. Hunting is human nature, we've been doing it since we first stepped foot on this world. It'd be kind of off setting if we just stopped. Oh. And let's not forget those hunters that still use bows and arrows.

Section 2:
   My opponent says that a majority of people just can't be trusted. Well, sure they can. First off, to make sure they can, we have this lovely system where the store selling the gun is required to do an extensive back ground check on the person buying the gun. If they have a history of mental illness and/or a criminal record, they won't be allowed to buy the gun. As you've seen in the crime statistics provided in the last round, that's not the majority. Just a small percentage of people. I'd also like to make note of the fact that only 18.5% of adults experience mental illness in a given year. And on top of that, only 4% experience serious mental health issues. Now, if we completely got rid of the gun laws, I don't think the death count would be that much different. That's simply because, one of those 4% would try and go shoot up a place, but instead of killing lots of people, the active shooter would be shot and killed in self defense. So if anything, I think taking away the gun laws would cut back the deaths only slightly. 

Speaking of gun laws though. My opponent brings up the licenses, pointing out that they're infringements on the 2 Amendment. They also ask why a 13 year old, or child buy a gun. Well let's tackle the license thing first. Yes. I agree that those are infringements to the 2A and I understand why they're there. But I do believe that they shouldn't be. A consequence of having to have a license to carry a gun around is having your gun registered. This is a direct violation of our right to privacy. It's none of the governments business what we own. As long as we're not maliciously harming one another or trying to defy the Constitution. Though I don't agree with them, I doubt there's anything anyone can do to get rid of them. As far as I'm concerned, as long as they aren't trying to take my guns from me, I'm good to go. Speaking of which, let's get to the children. Children aren't allowed to purchase guns simply because they're not mature enough. Having been a teenager myself not too long ago, I can tell you. Kids are full of energy and easily upset. Plus they're not responsible.

Again, I thank my opponent for his response and I eagerly await the next one.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-16 17:20:45
| Speak Round
dpowell3543dpowell3543 (PRO)
Well since my opponent has forfeited the round, all my points are extended.

As I'm aware, this is also the last round. So I'll take the time to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It's been fun.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-18 17:31:33
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
I wish the character limit wasn't so low. I have a lot to say. Lol
Posted 2019-02-16 17:21:30
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2019-02-23 20:57:10
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: dpowell3543
2019-02-23 04:17:34
Mr. BillJudge: Mr. Bill
Win awarded to: dpowell3543
I believe that dpowell won. He had much better arguments than Michael and seemed to be much more informed on the topic. He also had facts and research to back him up while Michael just made unsupported claims. Also there is the obvious fact that Michael quit.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 5 days
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29