Check out the Tournament Ladder

  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Hey guys, Jordan Cotter resident Judge here. I can't get my video comment to work so I'll have to give my judgement this way.

    First of all, I think you both did great. I'm just gonna summerize the exchanges and give my thoughts along the way so bear with me.

    PRO's argument was basically that guns kill people, pretty standard anti-gun argument. CON's response was that many things kill people and a lot more people, and that automatic weapons are pretty far down on the list. PRO's response was that the difference is, we actually need those things like cars. I think this was an effective rebuttal to the CON's point. PRO then posed the question "Why does anybody need an automatic weapon"? CON's response was that it is our right as Americans and then brought up the possibility of an invasion from another country. He then went on to talk about how it would be different if slaves had automatic weapons and then mentioned that a ban is unconstitutional. Here's where I think PRO missed some opportunities. He never responded to the Constitutional part of CON's argument even though there is an argument to be made that these guns aren't guaranteed by the Constitution, especially automatic weapons. Also he could have had a better rebuttal for the slave example. I think he mentioned that two wrongs don't make a right to which CON's response was it would be self defense so it's not a wrong. Regarding the invasion example, PRO mentioend military and police as institutions that protect us in those instances, but he later went on to say Police shouldn't have automatic weapons. So I think he undermined himself in this way even though I am skeptical of militarized police and I agree that their job is to server and protect and not kill. So I would have be sympothetic to this point, if not for the inconsistency. CON claimed the cops should have guns because they are outnumbered by civilians. I don't think this was a good point the way it was worded. It put civilians on the opposite side of cops instead of criminals. PRO also mentioned the practical implications of taking people's guns away, and how that could lead to blood shed. I don't believe PRO answered this point.

    Some improvements: PRO, it's good and all in normal discussions to say things like "I see your point" and "you gave me a lot to think about", but in competative debates, that weighs in the minds of judges and viewers as you giving a little ground. And I do it too so it's not a big deal, but just keep that in mind when it comes to compititions.

    CON, the only criticism i'd give you is that I think you went a little farther than you needed to to oppose the motion. You don't have to say we need something in order to claim that it should be legal. You went as far as to say we *need* these automatic weapons. Maybe this was spurred by PRO's question, but you seemed to say that beyond your answer to that question and it just seemed like it was going farther than you needed to go.

    And regarding the "need" exchange. It was very hard to judge that portion. Need wasn't defined by either side and it seemed like it really just came down to opinion.

    I think the vast majority of poeple would agree with the motion, so CON had his work cut out for him, but I think he did exactly what he needed to do to win this debate, and that was to claim the status quo and defend that as a way to oppose the motion. The way the laws are regarding automatic weapons, either side could claim the status quo depending on how they framed the debate and give themselves and incredible advantage, and CON did this much more effectively. He reiterated again and again throughout the debate that automatic weapons are not a problem and people are not dying to automatic weapons (only 2 have) and that was very convincing adn that's why I'm giving him the win here, he also avoided the mistake of spending too much time on self defense, which I think is a common mistake on this topic since automatic weapons aren't really self defense weapons. (The few times he brought self defense up was in the face of foreign invasion and when your attackers have serious fire power.) Delivery doesn't really matter in the scoring, but I will say he did sound very confident and persuasive in his delivery. But you both did great. Thanks for the entertaining debate.

    • 2 years ago

      @tmacdagreat Congrats for advancing to the next round!
      @hat4ever Hard luck on this one! We just opened registrations for November's tournament:

    • 2 years ago

      good debate man thanks alot

      • 2 years ago

        take my car and I'll shoot you. take my gun I'll run you over. cold world.