- 4,394
Why did you sign up if you can't participate?
GTP Mass Debating Contest- Heat 1
- Thread starter Danny
- 97 comments
- 4,179 views
Why did you sign up if you can't participate?
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Excellent point. That is something that should be discussed within your specific team.
- 10,081
- WFG9
Is Matt on team A or B?
Ok, team B. I might have considered stepping in, but I'm too biased on this subject. Go team A!
Ok, team B. I might have considered stepping in, but I'm too biased on this subject. Go team A!
- 1,681
That's the fun part
Arguing for the side that you feel strongly against is difficult, but it's interesting to see what kind of points you can bring up.
- 10,081
- WFG9
That's the fun part
I'd feel dirty and disingenuous.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I would really appreciate that as well - my life has become incredibly complicated and it isn't lightening up any time soon, so if we could have until 11:59 GMT on Sunday iot might help.
[edit] Question: We're currently including the entire text of the Second Amendment in our statement, for clarity. That's 27 words we could use elsewhere. Can we count them out of our 400 limit?
[edit] Question: We're currently including the entire text of the Second Amendment in our statement, for clarity. That's 27 words we could use elsewhere. Can we count them out of our 400 limit?
- 1,026
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- I Matty R I
I'm really going to enjoy reading what each team has to say. I coudn't care one way or the other about the debate topic. It's going to be interesting to see which argument is able to lean me to one side more than the other.
Seeing as how Duke and Famine are experienced mass-debators, I'm quite certain a stroke of luck is not needed for either of them or their teams.
Good luck you mass-debators.
Seeing as how Duke and Famine are experienced mass-debators, I'm quite certain a stroke of luck is not needed for either of them or their teams.
Good luck you mass-debators.
- 86,901
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Okay. The time has come. I'm ready to fire one out - I'll finish off momentarily with a few deft keystrokes...
Edit:
Team B Opening Argument
“People should have the right to carry firearms.”
Counter:
A firearm is a tool – a means to an end. Like all other tools it was designed for one purpose alone. A screwdriver is meant to insert and remove certain fixings. A hammer is meant to deliver precision blows at many times the force a man can manage alone. A firearm is designed to deliver a small projectile at great speed toward a remote target and cause disabling or mortal damage to that target. While almost any tool can be perverted from its purpose to do this also – a knife or chainsaw, for example – it is an inalienable truth that weapons are designed solely for this task. It is also true that firearms are unique amongst weapons in that they cannot be made to serve any other purpose but this task.
Firearms of course have their uses. In war it is necessary that one has better equipment than one’s enemies. In law enforcement it can be necessary to use this threat of extreme deadly force to subdue a criminal or suspected criminal without ever having to place oneself in direct danger from them. However, there is no such argument that firearms are necessary at any level for a private citizen, let alone enough justification to transform this into a “right”.
What uses for a firearm can an individual cite necessity?
Perhaps home protection. With weaponry like this not only excluded from ones’ rights but completely banned from sale there would be no such need for firearms as a domestic protector, as only the best-connected criminals could acquire them via import, at enormous personal risk. Further to this, using a firearm for such an eventuality turns the user into judge and jury – and potentially executioner – and deprives the target of Due Process.
Maybe the individual likes target shooting or hunting. While I’m sure that these are worthy and exciting pastimes, can participation in them really be described as a necessity requiring a “right”? Should the desires of the small percentage of populace who do enjoy these activities translate to a blanket “right to bear arms”. Of course not.
Firearms may have necessity in some situations and a possible leisure application, but they should be restricted only to those who have passed rigorous, repeated, scheduled mental examinations and assessment in each individual weapon they choose to use, not given as a “right” to all, no matter how untrained.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
And here is Team A's opening statement:
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution was intended to allow free private ownership of firearms for militia use. Ever since ratification, it has been interpreted to include private ownership for any reason. When properly applied, guns provide security against aggressive individuals and against the government itself. Anti-Federalists have maintained since the 1780s that private ownership of weapons is crucial to preventing the potential tyranny of centralized authority. This fundamental right to self-defense should not be curtailed for law-abiding citizens.
Although inherently dangerous, guns are effective and safe when handled properly and with thorough training. Armed citizens represent the most immediate form of self-defense in situations of violent crime or aggression. A robber, burglar, or other criminal is often deterred by a weapon displayed by a confident citizen, with no shooting required. Of course, if deterrence fails, the weapon is ready for use much more quickly than police could arrive to assist.
Opponents of private gun ownership frequently insist that availability of firearms increases violent crime, but historically this has not proven true. A 2004 study, analyzing data from 1979-1998, found no statistically significant association between changes in concealed weapon laws and state homicide rates. Nondiscretionary concealed weapon laws are not associated with significant increases or decreases in homicide or suicide. However, permissive weapons laws have been positively correlated to decreases in robbery/burglary in many states, and have not been linked to increases in these crimes. Switzerland, where every adult male is required to maintain militia weapons, enjoys very low crime rates.
Conversely, increasingly restrictive weapons laws do correlate to rising robbery/burglary rates not only within the US, but in countries as diverse as Canada, Jamaica, and Taiwan. States and countries enacting tougher anti-gun laws have generally not witnessed reductions in violent crime following firearm bans. Violent criminals and suicides simply resort to other methods if guns are less available.
In point of fact, restrictive gun laws do little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, yet do inhibit honest citizens in defending against those criminals. Stronger anti-gun laws will not alter this basic equation. From Shays Rebellion to Bernard Goetz, private firearms have proven effective for self defense against tyranny and aggression from both governments and individuals. Removing the right of lawful citizens to bear arms only weakens those citizens, while providing no additional security against violence.
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution was intended to allow free private ownership of firearms for militia use. Ever since ratification, it has been interpreted to include private ownership for any reason. When properly applied, guns provide security against aggressive individuals and against the government itself. Anti-Federalists have maintained since the 1780s that private ownership of weapons is crucial to preventing the potential tyranny of centralized authority. This fundamental right to self-defense should not be curtailed for law-abiding citizens.
Although inherently dangerous, guns are effective and safe when handled properly and with thorough training. Armed citizens represent the most immediate form of self-defense in situations of violent crime or aggression. A robber, burglar, or other criminal is often deterred by a weapon displayed by a confident citizen, with no shooting required. Of course, if deterrence fails, the weapon is ready for use much more quickly than police could arrive to assist.
Opponents of private gun ownership frequently insist that availability of firearms increases violent crime, but historically this has not proven true. A 2004 study, analyzing data from 1979-1998, found no statistically significant association between changes in concealed weapon laws and state homicide rates. Nondiscretionary concealed weapon laws are not associated with significant increases or decreases in homicide or suicide. However, permissive weapons laws have been positively correlated to decreases in robbery/burglary in many states, and have not been linked to increases in these crimes. Switzerland, where every adult male is required to maintain militia weapons, enjoys very low crime rates.
Conversely, increasingly restrictive weapons laws do correlate to rising robbery/burglary rates not only within the US, but in countries as diverse as Canada, Jamaica, and Taiwan. States and countries enacting tougher anti-gun laws have generally not witnessed reductions in violent crime following firearm bans. Violent criminals and suicides simply resort to other methods if guns are less available.
In point of fact, restrictive gun laws do little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, yet do inhibit honest citizens in defending against those criminals. Stronger anti-gun laws will not alter this basic equation. From Shays Rebellion to Bernard Goetz, private firearms have proven effective for self defense against tyranny and aggression from both governments and individuals. Removing the right of lawful citizens to bear arms only weakens those citizens, while providing no additional security against violence.
- 86,901
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Almost simultaneously
I tried to shy away from quoting studies as I'd expect to have to give direct reference to them and, in an oral debate, this wouldn't necessarily be possible (short of handing round copies of the study, which people then read instead of listening) - and I didn't see any last time out. Just my thoughts there though.
- 746
- Newcastle NSW
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Yeah, I banged that out last night, submitted it to my team for input, and then posted it here. In fact I didn't even realize you had posted yours until the page refreshed.
Almost simultaneously
I originally went with an anecdotal bit about the Columbine shootings, but overall it seemed weaker without at least some attempt to bring real data into it. And frankly, I couldn't resist, because that study actually came from an anti-gun website, but to me it didn't prove what they thought it proved, so I just had to turn it back against them.
When are rebuttals due?
- 1,026
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- I Matty R I
Very impressive teams A and B! Both of you have solid arguments and cover your designated sides well.
Can't wait for the rebuttal postings. My current vote could change around given the right rebuttal. I'll go ahead and say that each teams rebuttal posting should be well thought out, with justified opposition. One vote could do you in or out.
Good luck to both teams.
Can't wait for the rebuttal postings. My current vote could change around given the right rebuttal. I'll go ahead and say that each teams rebuttal posting should be well thought out, with justified opposition. One vote could do you in or out.
Good luck to both teams.
- 29,195
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Very good, both teams 👍 This is going to be a close one methinks... (I'm not saying which one I'm leaning towards, it's about 53-47 at the moment!)
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Team A's rebuttal submitted via PM to Ultrabeat. Hope I got the formatting right, because I sent it when I meant to preview it.
The 200 word limit was tough. I could have used another 100 or so. Big thanks to my teammate Small_Fryz for many of the points used in our rebuttal.
Good luck, Team B!
The 200 word limit was tough. I could have used another 100 or so. Big thanks to my teammate Small_Fryz for many of the points used in our rebuttal.
Good luck, Team B!
- 4,394
I really think Team A has a strong argument, very focused and organized.
