GTP Mass Debating Contest- Heat 1

[Danny]

Round One!

Team A vs. Team B

Debate Topic:-
People should have the right to carry firearms.

Team A will be arguing that they do, Team B will be arguing that they don't.

Deadline for 400 word arguement - Sunday 1st October.

Your 3 days to formulate a 400 word arguement start...



Now!

 

[kennythebomb]

Teams A and B or D and E? I'm assuming you mean A and B.

 

[Swift]

Man....now THIS is my kind of topic. Either way. Shucks!

 

[Danny]

Teams A and B or D and E? I'm assuming you mean A and B.

Error quashed. Thankyou.

 

[FoolKiller]

Duke vs Famine on the right to own a gun? This should be good.

I'll get the beer. Who's got the chips and salsa?

 

[Matt R]

Maybe this time I'll judge. Haha.

 

[Sage]

Duke vs Famine on the right to own a gun? This should be good.

Yeah, you gotta feel sorry for us judges on this one. This is going to be tough.

 

[Famine]

I don't understand the topic - there's too many negatives...

We're arguing that the prohibition on the limitation of the 2nd Amendment should be removed. So... we're FOR guns, right?

 

[Swift]

I don't understand the topic - there's too many negatives...

We're arguing that the prohibition on the limitation of the 2nd Amendment should be removed. So... we're FOR guns, right?

Good question.

 

[Small_Fryz]

i got the impression Team A was saying yes to the govt choice in getting rid of the amendment and Team B was saying No to govt choice in keepin the amendment

 

[Danny]

I don't understand the topic - there's too many negatives...

We're arguing that the prohibition on the limitation of the 2nd Amendment should be removed. So... we're FOR guns, right?

The US governments’ prohibition on limiting the right of the people, under the Second Amendment, to carry and bear arms, should be removed from the Constitution.

Team A are arguing that yes, the prohibition should be removed.

Team B are arguing that no, the prohibition should remain.

Capiche?

 

[Swift]

Team A are arguing that yes, the prohibition should be removed.

Team B are arguing that no, the prohibition should remain.

Capiche?

So, let's make it even plainer(cause I still don't get it. ) Team A wants people to be able to carry guns and Team B thinks guns should stay at home?

 

[Danoff]

...the prohibition is against limiting rights right?

So "No" prohibition is "yes" limit rights.
"Yes" prohibition is "no" limit rights.

 

[Danny]

So, let's make it even plainer(cause I still don't get it. ) Team A wants people to be able to carry guns and Team B thinks guns should stay at home?

Exact-a-mundo.

...the prohibition is against limiting rights right?

So "No" prohibition is "yes" limit rights.
"Yes" prohibition is "no" limit rights.

It's just agreeing/disagreeing with the given statement.

I just did this topic because I thought it would give people something more interesting to discuss.
If people want it changed, just say.

 

[FoolKiller]

I guess it would be too much trouble to say one is for the right to bear arms and the other is against it, huh?

And for a second I thought I just had too much beer last night.

 

[Duke]

Team A are arguing that yes, the prohibition should be removed.

Team B are arguing that no, the prohibition should remain.

Capiche?

But the prohibition in the Second Amendment is actually against making laws prohibiting private ownership of guns... so if that prohibition is removed (Team A's assigned stance), then it would become legal to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, Team A's assigned stance is actually "Boo, guns", not "Yay, guns" as indicated in the first post.

Clarification, please?

[edit] I'm not against the topic itself, I just need to know which side our teeam is arguing on.

 

[Danoff]

I just did this topic because I thought it would give people something more interesting to discuss.
If people want it changed, just say.

I agree that it is an interseting topic. I don't think anyone wants it changed. They just want to make sure they don't end up arguing the same side.

 

[FoolKiller]

They just want to make sure they don't end up arguing the same side.

Both teams win!!!

 

[Swift]

Both teams win!!!

No way! There has to be a winner and a LOSER! We need more friends for Team D.

 

[Danny]

I agree that it is an interseting topic. I don't think anyone wants it changed. They just want to make sure they don't end up arguing the same side.

But the prohibition in the Second Amendment is actually against making laws prohibiting private ownership of guns... so if that prohibition is removed (Team A's assigned stance), then it would become legal to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, Team A's assigned stance is actually "Boo, guns", not "Yay, guns" as indicated in the first post.

Clarification, please?

[edit] I'm not against the topic itself, I just need to know which side our teeam is arguing on.

I guess it would be too much trouble to say one is for the right to bear arms and the other is against it, huh?

And for a second I thought I just had too much beer last night.

...the prohibition is against limiting rights right?

So "No" prohibition is "yes" limit rights.
"Yes" prohibition is "no" limit rights.

So, let's make it even plainer(cause I still don't get it. ) Team A wants people to be able to carry guns and Team B thinks guns should stay at home?

i got the impression Team A was saying yes to the govt choice in getting rid of the amendment and Team B was saying No to govt choice in keepin the amendment

I don't understand the topic - there's too many negatives...

We're arguing that the prohibition on the limitation of the 2nd Amendment should be removed. So... we're FOR guns, right?

Okay, I've changed the statement to make it as clear as possible and put an end to this confusing farce.

 

[Swift]

Okay, I've changed the statement to make it as clear as possible and put an end to this confusing farce.

At least we got it all taken care of in the first few hours of the debate and not Sudnay morning

 

[kennythebomb]

Okay, I've changed the statement to make it as clear as possible and put an end to this confusing farce.

Much better!

 

[Duke]

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Famine]

Excellent.

Yeah, you get the easy side. Git.

 

[Evolution.]

Man....now THIS is my kind of topic. Either way. Shucks!

God dawg it.

 

[Duke]

Yeah, you get the easy side. Git.

Actually, I think you have the easy side, despite that I disagree with it. This should be interesting...

 

[Danoff]

I see some pretty solid arguments on both sides. There are a ton of different ways to spin it, so the word count is going to get in the way bigtime. I see the end result of this one being difficult to judge.

At least with the abortion topic, there were a limited number of ways to attack the problem....

 

[Swift]

I see some pretty solid arguments on both sides. There are a ton of different ways to spin it, so the word count is going to get in the way bigtime. I see the end result of this one being difficult to judge.

At least with the abortion topic, there were a limited number of ways to attack the problem....

All true. But I like this one better as it's not such a moral debate as it is a political one. Infact, this argument is above regular "opinion" because it has to deal with a specific phrase in an existing document. So it's about interpration. So you can use other things to help interpret it.

If I had a choice, I would've loved to have a topic like this.

Have fun guys!

 

[TopHat]

Hey! What about me? I cant be on the computer at school! I guess this is the end of the line for me!

 

[Blake]

This is going to be interesting. Good luck guys. 👍