GTP Mass Debating Contest- Heat 1

[Famine]

Team A's rebuttal submitted via PM to Ultrabeat.

Snap...

The 200 word limit was tough. I could have used another 100 or so.

That's a BIG snap!

Good luck, Team B!

Luck? We have no need for luck *polishes .44 Magnum*

You guys too

 

[Danny]

Team A(Duke and Small_Fryz) Rebuttal.

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.

That a gun is designed solely to inflict damage on a remote target is irrelevant to whether weapons serve a valid purpose. Nearly any item can be utilized in an attack, so it is only logical that a purpose-built weapon such as a gun is the best defense against an improvised or lower-powered weapon.

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”.

It is effectively impossible to ban all potential weapons - screwdrivers, hammers, knives, or jetliners – so it is counterproductive at best to ban one tool that is remarkably efficient at providing defensive capability to the individual. Police responders are not omnipresent and thus the citizen remains his own first line of defense.

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.

Prohibition laws are equally ineffective at preventing illegal traffic in drugs, immigrants, and other contraband, so criminals will still arm themselves illicitly – while no lawful citizens can. Also, a life-threatening aggressor forfeits Due Process by initiating his attack, allowing the victim - legally and morally - to defend himself by any necessary means.

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.

Numerous rights can be revoked when a citizen proves unfit to retain them, including firearm possession. A gun and training provide a citizen’s best form of immediate personal defense, therefore it behooves him to maintain that right by proper firearm handling.

 

[Danny]

Team B(Famine, CCX and MatttheTuner) Rebuttal

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.

Though it’s true that in the beginnings of US Independence, gained through armed conflict, personal defence against potential governmental “tyranny” was important, it’s no longer necessary, nor a realistic proposition. Certain individuals have demonstrated that privately owned weapons are little use against such “tyranny” – notably David Koresh.

This fundamental right to self-defense should not be curtailed for law-abiding citizens.

Nor should the rights of the accused, to Due Process, Trial by Jury and protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment (5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments) – the legal punishment for criminal trespass is not death, yet the ad hoc punishment of the private gun-owner is often exactly that. Unusual indeed.

Although inherently dangerous, guns are effective and safe when handled properly and with thorough training.

This is the crux of our position – guns ARE effective and safe, with thorough training. This differs markedly from gun ownership being a “right”, with no training required…

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.

The oft-used Swiss example doesn’t play out. There were less than 1/8th as many firearm murders there in 2003 than in the US, but 4 times more than in the UK, where firearms are banned. Differences between Swiss and US figures may be due to Swiss males receiving training in the safe use and maintenance of firearms through military service – reinforcing the notion that guns shouldn’t be a right, but a privilege pending satisfactory training.

 

[Sage]

🤬, this is like trying to decide which puppy to take home… they’re both the right choice!

 

[Swift]

🤬, this is like trying to decide which puppy to take home… they’re both the right choice!

I agree...almost glad I'm not a judge

 

[dougiemeats]

When are the decisions due? I have a machine problem that I'll be working on all day tommorow. If by some miracle I can write all the functions before 9 P.M., then I'll have some time.

But is Saturday still okay?

 

[a6m5]

We'll just count the 4 votes and let you know if we need yours, dougie! j/k

I have submitted my vote.

 

[Blake]

I thought both initial arguments could have been a little stronger, but I was definatly leaning towards one side, and now both rebuttals have been very strong. Incidently I’m now leaning towards the other team. Will be interesting to see what the judges think.

 

[Wenders]

Oh dear, I am so confused . Good arguments put forward by both teams.

I have only just had a chance to read rebuttals once, sorry more important things to do like watch the new episode of Lost, which I might add confused me as well. I am gonna sleep on this and cast my vote in the morning.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think I would be leaning more towards Duke's team. I liked his rebuttal but I feel that I am also leaning somewhat towards my own bias. I am happy I am not a judge.

I have only just had a chance to read rebuttals once, sorry more important things to do like watch the new episode of Lost, which I might add confused me as well.

Perhaps we can help. I haven't seen you in here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2443829#post2443829

 

[OZZYGT]

That was pretty good, too bad the debate wasn't extended enough to make an adequate scoring. Good luck judges





Ciao!

 

[Danny]

So far only two judges have cast their vote, for differing teams.

 

[Wenders]

My vote is now in.

 

[Danny]

Okay, Jjacks and dougimeats need to vote.

 

[Dave A]

Hmm that's two very well put arguments from both sides of the debate, personally I'm leaning more towards Team B but trying to make an honest decision without letting personal opinion get in the way would be very hard. I think team B have it imo, it's a pity Duke's team lost a member so late on, if they'd known earlier they might have been able to get someone to replace him.

 

[Matt R]

My vote has been submitted.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Ive been away for the last 4 days so i was unable to see what rebutal Duke was able to come up with.

Well done mate 👍

Look forward to the results

 

[Danny]

4/5 Votes recieved, result hinges on final vote.

 

[Famine]

4/5 Votes recieved, result hinges on final vote.

Looks like we're working the judges pretty hard this week, Duke

 

[Alex.]

let's corrupt the judge panel!

nah, we dont need that, we can win anyway

 

[Duke]

Looks like we're working the judges pretty hard this week, Duke

It's been a pretty tough decision for me, even. Good luck, Team B!

 

[Matt R]

Two votes per team. What a great debate. I'm glad we've got this all up an running now. 👍

 

[Danny]

If dougiemeats would just hurry up...

 

[dougiemeats]

Sent!

I apologize to the debaters, judges, and director for the late submission. It was a very busy weekend.

 

[Danny]

Opening statements
I felt Team A had a more well written opening statement. Team A gave more examples to support its claims while Team B seemed to have more of an opinionative statement without as strong of a factual base.

Rebuttals
Both teams did an excellent job with this. Both teams had solid arguements. I'm sure after reading each teams rebuttal a few opinions around the forum had changed, as well as votes. I found that Team B still brought a better game into this. Team B's rebuttal was clear and well thought out.

Conclusion
It's a hard choice to make. Team A and Team B both will be contenders in the finals I'm sure. Team A's opening statement was the tie breaker. Although I felt Team B had an advantage over Team A on rebuttals, it still wasn't enough to sway me away from Team A's impressive opening statement.

Vote : Team A!

Ok this has taken a lot of thought, reading and rereading each argument and rebuttal.

Both teams initial arguments were both excellent and put forward some very valid points and until rebuttals were submitted I was pretty much undecided, even possibly swayed a little from what my own beliefs are. However I feel that Famines/Small Fryz team came out top in the rebuttals not only in challenging Team A's argument but also using it to reinforce their own. The winning statement for me being:
"This is the crux of our position – guns ARE effective and safe, with thorough training. This differs markedly from gun ownership being a “right”, with no training required…"

My vote is for Team B - Famine and Small Fryz.

Well done to both teams.

This was effing tough. Both teams did an outstanding job, and not only that, but a similarly outstanding job. There were no logical fallacies to pick out. Both took a more objective route instead of relying on emotional responses, so that made it difficult to deem one argument superior over another. In fact, for me, there was only one single sentence that finally swayed me over to one side, by just a nudge: “Numerous rights can be revoked when a citizen proves unfit to retain them, including firearm possession.” This sentence was a stab right through Team B’s main argument (unfortunately for Team B, that was in Team A’s rebuttal, so Team B never got a chance to attack that point), so that sentence effectively won the argument for A, in my mind.

Still, remarkable job by both sides; and if Team A hadn’t written that, I honestly wouldn’t know which team to pick.

Hey, Danny. Here's my decision!
----------------------------------------------

Talk about rising to the occasion. Bravo to both teams. It was a closely fought battle, but one of the teams just blew me away in the rebuttal, and it was the Team B. Team A was very, very impressive from the beginning to the end. I bought everything from the Team A's argument. In fact, I was getting ready to give it to them, just until the late in the game surge by the Team B.

Couple of points that pushed the Team B over the top:

• Citizens armed with small arms, can they really hold the line against the likes of M1 tanks or A-10 Thunderbolt II?
• Questioning of the "right" to own guns with no proper training. Also, effectively shooting down(no pun intended) the Team A's example of Swiss. It was excuted very well.

Again, great job by both teams. I wish I could vote for both teams, but in my eyes, Team B did finish their uphill battle just marginally stronger. I am very interested to see how the other judges vote, since this one is so close, I'm still not absolutely 100% sure, if I made a right call.

This was a difficult decision to make. The initial arguments were both strong and, once again, it came down the rebuttals. I thought that Team A provided a more convincing counter-argument against Team B's initial points. They used the comparison of other prohibition laws to gun-control laws effectively and their argument for self-defense was hard to argue against. Though it was a very difficult, I am confident in my decision of the winner of this debate.

My decision goes to Team A.

Congratulations Team A!

 

[Matt R]

Congratulations to both teams.

 

[Famine]

Congratulations indeed. I demand a recount!

 

[dougiemeats]

Congratulations indeed. I demand a recount!

I hope I don't get the nickname of "Florida" around here

Congrats to both teams

 

[Alex.]

argh ****!

hehe unlucky

 

[Danny]

argh ****!

hehe unlucky

Don't be blue. It was an outstanding arguement from both teams.