EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1175

That we should ban all guns to the public

(PRO)
WINNER!
13 points
(CON)
0 points
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
Guns are an easy killer. People who want to kill will take advantage of this to murder.
More guns in circulation will lead to more homicides.
A gun ban would reduce the number of guns(making it harder since they have to go through black market and illegal places).
Therefore, guns should be banned.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-26 02:18:00
| Speak Round
DatBoiDatBoi (CON)
Banning guns means removing a form of self-defense from people,leaving them vulnerable to murderers.
The black market will flourish after such a ban and, over the course of a few years,gun sale will recover and murder rates will soar due to the lack of defense.
Guns should not be banned.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-26 15:33:32
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
Widespread gun defense is a myth*, people hardly ever use guns for defense and don't need to. Police are more effective.
The black market is harder due to higher gun costs and high enforcement against guns.
*Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-28 02:23:20
| Speak Round
DatBoiDatBoi (CON)
My point was that guns are used in a defensive way in the absence of police enforcements,so your first point is invalid.
Secondly,banning guns would result in a violent reaction from people and even a revolution.Considering that the participants are well-armed,this should fail to bring any peace.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-30 16:25:03
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
Gun defense is a myth, it requires much training which most lack. So, hardly anybody uses guns for self defense anyways. They would therefore not be more vulnerable to murders.
A violent reaction is not inherent to a gun ban. It requires much support, which would have a peaceful response.



Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-02 00:12:21
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
Restate: Since not many civilians use guns to stop crimes anyways, they are not more vulnerable to murderers.
The black market won't flourish because of high prices and regulations.
A gun ban won't lead to a revolution if it has support, that is democracy, which is part of my model.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-06 23:19:52
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
Also, confiscating guns can stop an armed insurrection by some protest group. After that, the attacks will go down and disappear.
I extend my arguments for this round.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-10 00:36:43
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@Elijah Kuksenko
This was a secret topic, so I didn't choose to argue for the affirmative of this in particular.
This debate was on whether guns should be banned, not how it currently is in our society. The 2nd amendment affirms the right to keep and bear arms, but is this a good idea? or are firearms better off illegal?
Also, what do you mean by "choose who is right"?
Posted 2016-10-26 01:55:55
Elijah KuksenkoElijah Kuksenko
@BioHazard I did not choose who is right yet but don't you think that banning guns to the public is disobeying the 2nd Amendment.
Posted 2016-10-25 18:22:56
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@DatBoi
It is too bad that we couldn't keep this going.
Posted 2016-10-21 20:22:12
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
It may be challenging to stay in the 300 character limit.
Posted 2016-09-26 02:18:47
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@DatBoi
I am curious to see your case as well.
Posted 2016-09-26 01:09:36
DatBoiDatBoi
I'm curious to see your case.
Posted 2016-09-25 20:26:30
DatBoiDatBoi
I'm curious to see your case.
Posted 2016-09-25 20:08:22
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
Finally, someone accepted.
Posted 2016-09-25 19:35:58
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-10-16 15:31:01
The LogicianJudge: The Logician
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
Reasoning:
The arguments put forth by the speaker against the motion fail to provide adequate reasons as to why guns should not be banned. The speaker for the motion has been able to defend all his/her points visibly well and attack those of the opposition; the questions about the revolution and the black market were well dealt with. Also, the initial points which formed the fundamental structure of the proposer's argument such as the lack of training gave the proposer a lead throughout the debate.

Feedback:
Both participants failed to venture into the depths of the motion, maintaining a rather general and vague purview of society and how guns are used. No examples or statistics were used to strengthen the arguments on either side and the specific aspects such as usage of guns in various countries, alternatives to guns for self-defence, the laws regarding usage of guns by civilians, etc. were not touched upon at all. Both sides should have carried the debate forward rather than reiterate the same points again and again, having not even properly framed of detailed them. Also, rounds were often forfeited unnecessarily as there was adequate scope for discussion in the same.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 comment on this judgement
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
It is hard to do all this when you got a 300 character limit. I didn't find those necessary for my short gun ban argument anyways.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
2016-10-17 20:29:08
MrMarxJudge: MrMarx
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
2016-10-18 17:22:13
fire_wingsJudge: fire_wings
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
Reasoning:
This debate is easy to judge, I can just write "FF", but I want to give this as a three point judgement, or so.

Feedback:
No forfeits
0 comments on this judgement
2016-10-18 17:33:14
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
2016-10-18 20:18:01
KohaiJudge: Kohai
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
Reasoning:
Con forfeited most of the rounds and thus pro wins by default. I do believe that both pro and con's contentions were rather week.

Feedback:
Con - Never forfeit a round. Always post something.

Pro - Your arguments need to be expanded on. This is why 300 limit for characters is really not enough for a real debate.
1 comment on this judgement
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
It was a real debate, just a short one that didn't have much room for expanding on my arguments in detail.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
2016-10-22 02:09:21
brandon.apastaJudge: brandon.apasta
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
Reasoning:
Unfortunately, this was not a decent debate. Firstly, both sides were unable to provide solid definitions, connections, impacts, claims, warrant, contention, etc. to support their side of the debate. Despite this lack of explanation in the debate, the stronger and most explained arguments were from the pro side. The pro side was able to defend points very well, while the con attacked points very well. Most importantly, the con side forfeited the debate 3 times, proving there was no defense for that side, while the pro only dropped once since it seemed that the opponent was unable to defend their side. Not at all one of my favorite debates, but is considered a good debate and arguments were simple, but proved points solidly.

Feedback:
For the pro side, I believe that you should go through more arguments in order to attack the other side making them weaker. When you refute something, make it obvious that they are wrong and you are right. In order to prove you are right, you must have good solid arguments in the beginning instead of starting with 4 sentences, which did not help you at all in the long run. The first round is an outline for the remainder of the debate and it should clearly state what you plan on defending in your case. Also, if your opponent forfeits claim they have nothing to defend and that they fail at defending their side of the debate. I also believe that forfeiting the last round was incorrect, you could have concluded the debate with a strong message proving that you definitely won.
For the con side, I believe that you should work on defending arguments. You were the only specific person in this debate to actually refute the other side, more refutations will help you in the long run. Same thing applies to this side when it comes to the first round. Also, if you cannot defend your case then do not take part of the debate and forfeit 3 rounds, which looks extremely bad and it shows your lack of knowledge. If you are confident, even if you have no evidence, you can prove to everyone that you can win.
Overall good job to everyone in this debate. Make sure to not forfeit, start strong, defend strongly, and refute greatly. Good job again! :)
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 comment on this judgement
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
This debate had a 300 character limit. It was supposed to be short, making it a challenge in its own way.
Also, I don't care about pointing out that I won and did better then my opponent at the end of a debate.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
2016-10-24 02:11:48
WalkingTargetJudge: WalkingTarget
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 10 rounds
  • 300 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • No images
  • No HTML formatting
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None