Challenge me.

I, of course, understood the implications of my move. So thanks for going easy on me. Although I'm happy to debate this issue, I will begin with a critique of the parameters set by my opponent. Because of the nature of this debate (and the fact that I allowed my opponent to choose the topic), I believe I am able to argue against the aforementioned parameters. I will, however, completely respect the resolution that my opponent has created. I would argue that everything else is up in the air. 1. BURDEN OF PROOF-My opponent has decided to put the burden of proof on both sides of the debate. OF COURSE! It just makes it that much harder for me, right? Wrong. Rougeagent has not considered the implications of this decision. A. Setting the burden of proof for both sides makes for a bad debate. Consider the following: Both of us make arguments, but neither of us manage to "prove" these arguments. How can anyone decide a winner? People wouldn't vote. I think that a good debate should encourage lots of voting so as to find a greater consensus among our little debate community. B. With the burden of proof on both sides, the debate will lend itself to hit-and-miss arguments. What I mean to say is that the debate will be more focused on defensive argumentation strategy. We've only got a set amount of room to debate with, so if we are stuck defending our positions rather than attacking our opponent's, the debate becomes rather boring. C. Alternative: I suggest that we instead make the burden of proof rest upon the shoulders of the PRO in this debate. In doing so, we (A) gain a greater consensus as to who wins the debate, and (B) avoid making the debate boring and full of defensive argumentation. 2. NEW MATERIAL-I think I have a general idea of what my opponent means by this, but I'd like an explanation. Can you explain what you mean by new material? (New sources? New arguments? ) I like the idea; I'd just like a better understanding before I agree to it completely. 3. SWEARING-I'd like an explanation on this one as well. It might be a problem. .. just kidding. Alright, so I would appreciate it if my opponent would consider my arguments against the framework set for this debate. Next, the definitions. I will first argue broadly. 1. Definitions taken from dictionary. com aren't inherently valid. A. As a money-making business, dictionary. com has not avoided the grips of the financial crisis. In fact, they've recently discovered a new money-making venture. Dictionary. com is greatly influenced by corporate America. When money is involved, we cannot take it as a valid source. "If you go to Dictionary. com today or tomorrow, you'll notice a homepage takeover ad by Toyota featuring their hybrid Prius vehicle. It's part of a 2-day ad blitz campaign Toyota is conducting on the popular word lookup site, which sees 35 million visitors per month. " "Also, when people are learning a new word, they may associate it with the brand that's being advertised on the page. This is genius if you're Toyota and you want consumers to associate the word hybrid with their Prius. You can imagine how many brands will want to be visible to associate their product with the initial learning of a word. " (. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com...) B. Alternative-I believe a more credible source would be thefreedictionary. com. The website reads, "All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. " While this source can be used for informational purposes such as this debate, dictionary. com is generally used as a means of brainwashing people into blind consumerism. Now I'll get specific. 1. CITIZEN-"A civilian" (thefreedictionary. com). 2. CIVILIAN- A. "A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity" (thefreedictionary. com). B. Notice that the definition of civilian notes exclusion. I would argue that this means a civilian is "one who is not an active member of the military, the police. " (thefreedictionary. com) 3. SHOULD-"Used to express conditionality or contingency" (thefreedictionary. com). 4. OWN-"To have control over" (thefreedictionary. com). 5. FIREARMS-I think that the definition of this word is probably better to keep, as it probably had an effect on my opponent's choosing of this topic. Once again, I believe all of my definitions should be taken over my opponent's seeing as they come from a much more credible source. OK, so there are two scenarios in which I think everyone should vote for me: A. YOU ACCEPT MY FRAMEWORK FOR THIS DEBATE-If my opponent accepts my framework for this debate given thus far, I will be attempting to show that United States citizens should not necessarily be allowed to own firearms. In fact, that's all I should have to do to win. B. IF MY FRAMEWORK IS REJECTED-If my framework is rejected, I will still debate with my own definitions in order to prove that United States citizens should absolutely not be allowed to own firearms. I think that's enough for this round. I'll reserve the right to present my in-depth analysis of both scenarios in the next round. Again, thanks for accepting this debate, Rougeagent! It's an interesting topic.