Argument/opponents argument/rebuttal

[Admin]

So I'm 100% if we use this template and all have one argument, one opponent argument that we think will happen and a rebuttal prepared we should be good. Try to keep stuff written down so we can all gain a sense of what the other will be saying.

Example:

Your Argument:
Citizens who have completed gun courses and have obtained a license, which includes a background check, should be allowed to carry guns on their person whenever they are not in a courthouse, post office, police station, town hall, and any other town government buildings. It is their constitutional right to bear arms. Guns are available so that the people of this country can protect their families, themselves and their property. In an ideal world, there would be no black market trade and smuggling of weapons. In an ideal world, why, you wouldn’t need a weapon for anything because everyone would follow the rules and leave each other in peace. That is a fantasy. That world does not exist. This is the world we live in and we need to take appropriate measures to keep ourselves safe.

Your Opponent’s Argument:
The “bad” guys don’t smuggle guns in from other countries. Thugs that terrorize cities aren’t the mafia with connections. These are low life criminals who get their weapons from the upstanding citizens who insist on carrying. Bad people use guns stolen from good people. The more guns you allow citizens to have, the more guns end up in the hands of gangs. Those same guns will be used against law-abiding citizens and the police officers who swore to protect them. You’re not solving the problem by adding more weapons to the equation. You’re just dousing the fire in gasoline under the misguided pretense that it will somehow tackle the flames. It’s ludicrous. If there are no guns on the street at all, which would be easier to obtain if we stopped pumping them out there, then there would be no need to protect yourself with bullets. Police will be there to protect you with police-issue weapons if need be.


Your Rebuttal:
Penalizing the general public by violating their constitutional rights because a certain group of individuals have decided to abuse said right is flawed logic at best. Following that logic, people would be forced to use cabs because some people decide to drive drunk. Any neutral entity that is abused by a few will become maligned and ruined for the many following that logic. We are not a police state. We should not have to rely solely on the police to take care of ourselves. We should have the option to defend ourselves. The constitution says so.
What if the cops don’t get there in time? Would you sit around twiddling your thumbs until police find your home while a burglar terrorizes your family. No! You’re going to defend them. It’s your duty to do so, and that is not always possible with fists alone. There is no possible way to rid this country entirely of guns. You can’t just go from house to house raiding dressers and trunks. It’s a violation of privacy against law-abiding citizens. The people of this country do not deserve that. Stripping the people of their personal means of protection means treating them like criminals. If they’ve done nothing wrong, they need not be harassed.