Jump to content
270soft Forum
NYrepublican

My upcoming debate

Recommended Posts

I have an upcoming debate on gun control next week.

The resolution:Assault style rifles [as defined by the affirmative team] should be bannned in the United States.

I am arguing against this and I need to prepare for any potential definitions that might be given.

Would you guys have any ideas for arguments?

My favorite arguments

1.Like drugs and alcohol guns arent price sensitive and will be purchased no matter what they cost and thus supply side measures wont work in the long term.

2.Very few people abuse these rights and taking them away because some people abuse them is essentially like arguing that we should ban emails because they're used for spam.

3.any measures to enforce such laws would either not work or be horrific for personal liberty. A gun buyback wouldn't work in the US because I dont see people giving go their guns to the government and measures to force them to would basically involve going into every house and searching every person which is both impractical and constitutionally suspect. Also measures to prevent it being bought in the black market would probably involve some really shady practices like the government monitoring all internet traffic (as the affirmative team proposed in one practice debate).

Advice and feedback is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I have an upcoming debate on gun control next week.

The resolution:Assault style rifles [as defined by the affirmative team] should be bannned in the United States.

I am arguing against this and I need to prepare for any potential definitions that might be given.

Would you guys have any ideas for arguments?

My favorite arguments

1.Like drugs and alcohol guns arent price sensitive and will be purchased no matter what they cost and thus supply side measures wont work in the long term.

2.Very few people abuse these rights and taking them away because some people abuse them is essentially like arguing that we should ban emails because they're used for spam.

3.any measures to enforce such laws would either not work or be horrific for personal liberty. A gun buyback wouldn't work in the US because I dont see people giving go their guns to the government and measures to force them to would basically involve going into every house and searching every person which is both impractical and constitutionally suspect. Also measures to prevent it being bought in the black market would probably involve some really shady practices like the government monitoring all internet traffic (as the affirmative team proposed in one practice debate).

Advice and feedback is appreciated.

As I've been saying, it's the culture behind guns (their glorification, romanticization, and unrealistic portrayal as the solution to a lot of problems they aren't really solutions to), as well as the movie, television, and computer game industry's hard promotion of this (and their almost equal glorification of criminal, vigilante, and insurgent characters as protagonists to law-enforcers, soldiers, and other "responsible" gun-using characters) drilled hard and deep into the American psyche that's the real problem and issue at stakes. Gun laws, either way, are nothing but an ineffective and short-lasting placebo for election campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a massive argument against guns rather than for ^^

But if you want to answer to that

In US there are dubble homicides and murders in average per inhabitant than in Western countries

But they will always tell you "If you want a safety, buy a gun"

Everybody isn't a master of it, it creates some Counter Strike society at the end with a 1 life in the counter 😛 

And so, the liberty of wearing gun if not controled, can touch the liberty of life of many citizens

I do not think they will oppose these arguments to you, but these are probably among the most effective to oppose to Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a socialist I tend to distrust legislation that will (like drug laws) almost certainly be used to target poor and minority gun owners. Poverty and disenfranchisement are the number one causes of all forms violence, I see any “liberal” gun reforms as being a bandaid on a carcinoma. Just my two cents, but those are arguments coming from a radical left perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a variety of effective non-lethal weapons that render guns obsolete, unless the idea is to kill. I would hope that gun owners do not own guns because they hope or desire to kill. If they don't then the non-lethal alternatives should suit them just as well. I took a five military history courses in undergrad, and in my War and Society class we read about military-grade non-lethal weapons, including accurate projectiles. These would incapacitate a home intruder. These would less likely kill a child or other innocent in an accidental discharge. I also think that cops should use these. I really think organizations like the NRA are the main reason why non-lethal alternatives are not better advertised. 

I think rather than banning guns, a Federal Commission could regulate to slowly replace shoot-to-kill weaponry with incapacitating non-lethal weaponry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, vcczar said:

There are a variety of effective non-lethal weapons that render guns obsolete, unless the idea is to kill. I would hope that gun owners do not own guns because they hope or desire to kill. If they don't then the non-lethal alternatives should suit them just as well. I took a five military history courses in undergrad, and in my War and Society class we read about military-grade non-lethal weapons, including accurate projectiles. These would incapacitate a home intruder. These would less likely kill a child or other innocent in an accidental discharge. I also think that cops should use these. I really think organizations like the NRA are the main reason why non-lethal alternatives are not better advertised. 

I think rather than banning guns, a Federal Commission could regulate to slowly replace shoot-to-kill weaponry with incapacitating non-lethal weaponry. 

"One should not draw a lethal weapon unless one intends to take a life,"

-Miyamoto Musashi, "The Book of the Five Rings"

A quote to consider, @NYrepublican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

"One should not draw a lethal weapon unless one intends to take a life,"

-Miyamoto Musashi, "The Book of the Five Rings"

A quote to consider, @NYrepublican

Teams are assigned @Patine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I don't comprehend your response.

the debate team positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

the debate team positions.

Ohhh... I'm not used to such rigid formalities. It's literally been over 25 years since I've had such an assignment. It was a mock UN General Assembly debate. I was assigned the Ambassador of Egypt. I can't remember the topic now, but I successfully effectively filibustered and threw off the whole debate by focusing on some tangent issue, with the mock Sweden debater joining right along with me, and we completely turned the final vote to some unrealistic result... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ohhh... I'm not used to such rigid formalities. It's literally been over 25 years since I've had such an assignment. It was a mock UN General Assembly debate. I was assigned the Ambassador of Egypt. I can't remember the topic now, but I successfully effectively filibustered and threw off the whole debate by focusing on some tangent issue, with the mock Sweden debater joining right along with me, and we completely turned the final vote to some unrealistic result... :P

LOL.In one of the mock debates which was 1 vs 1 because 2 people were absent The affirmative just cited fake statistics allegedly from Harvard  and Princeton, then shouted randomly in German for a minute and concluded with JFK's moon landing speech. (I kid you not). and he actually won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

LOL.In one of the mock debates which was 1 vs 1 because 2 people were absent The affirmative just cited fake statistics allegedly from Harvard  and Princeton, then shouted randomly in German for a minute and concluded with JFK's moon landing speech. (I kid you not). and he actually won.

Seriously!?  What did you do that caused you to lose, walk of the stage :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

Seriously!?  What did you do that caused you to lose, walk of the stage :P

Or say, "Please clap," after a bombed zinger? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

Seriously!?  What did you do that caused you to lose, walk of the stage :P

I was told thisof this.it was in a different room from where my practice was.My debate was more sane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I have an upcoming debate on gun control next week.

The resolution:Assault style rifles [as defined by the affirmative team] should be bannned in the United States.

I am arguing against this and I need to prepare for any potential definitions that might be given.

Would you guys have any ideas for arguments?

My favorite arguments

1.Like drugs and alcohol guns arent price sensitive and will be purchased no matter what they cost and thus supply side measures wont work in the long term.

2.Very few people abuse these rights and taking them away because some people abuse them is essentially like arguing that we should ban emails because they're used for spam.

3.any measures to enforce such laws would either not work or be horrific for personal liberty. A gun buyback wouldn't work in the US because I dont see people giving go their guns to the government and measures to force them to would basically involve going into every house and searching every person which is both impractical and constitutionally suspect. Also measures to prevent it being bought in the black market would probably involve some really shady practices like the government monitoring all internet traffic (as the affirmative team proposed in one practice debate).

Advice and feedback is appreciated.

Criticisms of your arguments:

1. You need to provide evidence of this. I have no idea if this is true, but I would assume guns have an elastic demand because they are neither necessities nor are they addictive. Simply saying this isn't enough, you would need economic data to convince me that guns have an inelastic demand. And I'm not sure why you mention supply-side measures. Supply-side measures are meant to lower prices, and increase demand. Aren't you arguing that raising the prices of guns wouldn't lower demand?

2. Again you need to provide evidence. Maybe find the percentage of illegal gun owners in relation to legal gun owners? Also comparing something that has the capability to be used for physical violence (guns) to something that cannot harm you physically (spam emails) would be a very easy point for the other side to attack. The other side may look to discredit much of your argument on the basis that you are dismissing the issue of safety. I would recommend finding something else that causes injuries and deaths, such as motor vehicle accidents, and point out how there is no one calling for a ban on cars. Although, we do have many laws and regulations to ensure safety on the roads, so the other side could weaken that argument by conceding that we simply need to strengthen regulations on guns and not actually ban them outright.

3. Again you need evidence. Saying you "don't see people giving their guns to the government" is weak; say "people will not willingly give their guns to the government, especially when they consider it a constitutional right." Avoid words like "probably"; be more assertive in what a certain event's effects will be, and then provide evidence of this assertion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Criticisms of your arguments:

1. You need to provide evidence of this. I have no idea if this is true, but I would assume guns have an elastic demand because they are neither necessities nor are they addictive. Simply saying this isn't enough, you would need economic data to convince me that guns have an inelastic demand. And I'm not sure why you mention supply-side measures. Supply-side measures are meant to lower prices, and increase demand. Aren't you arguing that raising the prices of guns wouldn't lower demand?

2. Again you need to provide evidence. Maybe find the percentage of illegal gun owners in relation to legal gun owners? Also comparing something that has the capability to be used for physical violence (guns) to something that cannot harm you physically (spam emails) would be a very easy point for the other side to attack. The other side may look to discredit much of your argument on the basis that you are dismissing the issue of safety. I would recommend finding something else that causes injuries and deaths, such as motor vehicle accidents, and point out how there is no one calling for a ban on cars. Although, we do have many laws and regulations to ensure safety on the roads, so the other side could weaken that argument by conceding that we simply need to strengthen regulations on guns and not actually ban them outright.

 3. Again you need evidence. Saying you "don't see people giving their guns to the government" is weak; say "people will not willingly give their guns to the government, especially when they consider it a constitutional right." Avoid words like "probably"; be more assertive in what a certain event's effects will be, and then provide evidence of this assertion.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×