Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

First and foremost I would like the judge to look at what society has been defined as in this round. My opponent claims that the way I define society does not include everything, yet fails to bring up a counter-interpretation of the word society. This means that when you are looking to how guns affect society, you will view society as per the definition I provided. As this is the only definition, and my opponent had the chance to give another, you should accept my definition of society in this round. I will get to why this is important later in my argument. Secondly, let's look at the burden argument. This is the biggest and most important thing in this entire round. The pro debater has said in both of his speeches that I as the con must negate the entire resolution. This simply isn't true. I as the con must only prove that guns are necessary in one instance in modern society. If I can do that, then I win. On the flip side, the pro debater must prove they are unnecessary in all aspects of modern society. The resolution does not give him the liberty of excluding some, as the wording implies all. My opponent supports this analysis of the way the resolution is worded because he continues to say that we must look at the entirety of modern society. So I will grant him that one argument. That "in modern society" implies all of modern society. If you look to my first speech, you will see where I discuss the burdens argument. Then when you look to my opponents second speech, he does not tell you why this argumentation is wrong. So if I as the con prove that guns are useful in only one aspect of modern society, then the affirmative has not done his job of affirming the whole resolution. He has only affirmed a part of it, and must therefore lose. My opponent says: "Therefore, to win Con must show a majority of modern societies to whom guns are absolutely necessary to inter- citizen and societal relations. We accept his other criteria as the remaining aspects of society to be held for the round. " So as I have just proven to you, I don't have to show it is a majority, rather I have to show one of the six criterion of society; inter-citizen relations, societal relations, protection, continuity, security, or identity has guns being necessary. I will now do this. According to the universal declaration of human rights article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. " Not only does this give people the right to not be intruded upon, but has protection of the LAW against intruders. Now I realize that wikipedia doesn't have the best reputation as far as being legitimate. But this site that I give you has been well researched, has where the individual got his/her information at the bottom, and is easily found on the internet also. This is just a compilation of states that have bills entitled "castle doctrine. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... This site specifically shows that thirty states have the castle doctrine, and one more state (ohio) is getting this castle doctrine. This doctrine relies on the idea that a man's home is his castle. And that an individual does not have to back down and allow an intruder into his home, but has the ability to use deadly force if necessary. So according to the laws of the majority of our states, and the U. N. declaration of human rights, we have the RIGHT to own guns and use them if necessary. Now my opponent said what about the right of the person breaking in? My first answer here is that as soon as he violated others' rights he gave up his rights. We see this in our system today. Felons do not have all the rights non-felons have. So the laws governing certain americans give them the right to use a gun on an intruder in their home. This proves exactly how guns are necessary in the aspect of protection and security. Also on the topic of security, according to www. a-human-right. com when people are given the right to own guns in their homes criminals are less likely to break in. The example given is England. They allowed people to own firearms in their homes, and when they weren't allowed to, the number of intruders increased. This once again shows how owning guns is in fact necessary. Those are two of the strongest points as to why guns are necessary for modern society. That means that you as a judge now have two areas of six where I have proven how guns are necessary. Now let's take a look at the six that my opponent has to prove and see how he is doing on those. Foreign Relations: He gives many different sources showing how guns are not necessary. My first argument is that these only talk about Iraq and Iran. Since modern means after the medieval ages, I say that guns were necessary in dealing with Nazi Germany, Great Britain during the Revolutionary war, and the Confederate States of America in the civil war. (yes they were technically a country) So guns were necessary in that aspect of foreign relations in modern society. So he has not done a decent enough job of proving this one. Societal Relations: My opponent says absolutely nothing on how guns are unnecessary in societal relations. There is absolutely zero argumentation done throughout any of his speeches. This means he is most definitely not fulfilling his burden here. Protection: He argues that the number of homicides and suicides increase when a gun is in the home. While this may be true, it still doesn't stop the fact that the U. N. declaration of human rights gives people the right to stop intruders according to the laws of their land, which in most areas of the U. S. mean they can use deadly force. So he is not winning this argument either. Continuity: He says that because I use the word "sometimes" it cannot be accepted. No statistic is every 100% except the number of people who are going to die. I can't include everything, and neither can he. He still doesn't tell you why my argumentation that I presented in my first speech is wrong. He just says that this doesn't apply everywhere. Once again, just the fact that it does apply somewhere gives me enough ground to win the debate. Security: He says refer to his argumentation made on gun violence escalating. I already proved how while this may not be a good thing, still does not take away their right to own and use a gun on an intruder. Not only that, but he says that you would feel better knowing that an intruder is holding a knife, not an ak47. But to assume that there would never be guns is absurd. He never proves that criminals still won't use guns. A criminal wouldn't use a gun because it is illegal. He/She obviously has no qualms with committing a crime, and therefore wouldn't care if they broke the law by having a gun. He also says here how it doesn't link to the continuance of society, but I don't have to prove every aspect of society needs guns, just one. Identity: Once again he says that because everyone doesn't identify with guns means that this doesn't work. Not everyone has to identify with guns in order for it to be a part of our identity. Identity implies diversity. Just the fact that not everyone does identify with guns means that it does play a part in some people's identity. So he really has no argumentation on this one either. When you are looking at where to vote, you can look to the six criterion that my opponent and I agree on and ask yourself which ones I am winning.