Gun Control

Thank you, Renegade184, for your response. Before I continue my refutations, I'd first like to say your complaint that my style of debate is too formal or too organized or whatever you were trying to say is duly noted. However, I will continue to present my case in the manner I deem most efficient. It will be greatly appreciated if all your complaints in the future were more relevant to the topic at hand.As a reminder, in my previous round I presented two reasons why my opponent's argument fails: 1) it is impossible for modern day American citizens, using legal firearms, to win a war against their own government; and 2) the same logic which my opponent employs to affirm the resolution can also be used to affirm other claims which are axiomatically false. Let's tackle each of these one at a time.1. It is impossible for American citizens to win a war against their own governmentMy opponent raised no objection to the fact that the USA's 2017 militia is astronomically more powerful than its 1791 predecessor, naturally because it is irrefutable. He does, however, disagree that it would be impossible for us to win such a war, but the only defense given is a brief mentioning of revolutions in other countries, although he admits they were small and not notable, and he doesn't specifically cite a single one of them.What an insane leap in inductive reasoning this is. He claims that because small revolutions have recently succeeded in other countries, a revolution could therefore succeed in America? That's like saying because I can leap 3 feet, I can therefore leap 3,000 feet. One cannot deduce that X is possible based merely on the fact that Y is proved to be possible when X is many times more difficult than Y.It would make sense to say, "We can defeat the US's military; therefore, we can also defeat much smaller militaries of other countries." But the reverse makes no sense at all!In 2016, the United States was by far the world leader in military spending with a 611 billion dollar budget. That's over two and a half times as much as the second leading country, China, which spent a mere $215 billion. Third place, Russia, spent less than $70 billion. [1]Needless to say, my opponent must do much more to adequately demonstrate how American citizens could possibly win a war against their own juggernaut of a military, because as it stands his speculations seem to phenomenally underestimate the difference in military strength between the US and whatever anonymous countries he alluded to.2. The cornerstone of my opponent's logicMy opponent takes exception to the syllogism I was kind enough to provide for him, saying it misrepresents his true beliefs. That may be so, but it does not misrepresent what he's said thus far in this debate. I did not assume his logic; I transformed it into an easily understood deductive argument.His logic is this: firearms should be publicly available because they can help us win a war against our own government if the need arises. But you can't deduce a conclusion from one singular premise. That is, you can't say something like, "The dog is barking. Therefore, the mailman is near." A logical deduction requires at least two premises, and if we think carefully enough, we can figure out the missing premise here: "The dog only barks when it detects the presence of the mailman." This statement is necessarily implied by the argument itself, the conclusion of which would be unfortunately unwarranted if not for this second premise.Similarly, my opponent's argument was originally missing a second premise as well, without which the conclusion cannot be logically justified. By making these two statements, 1) guns should be publicly available, because 2) guns would help us win a war against our government if need be, my opponent necessarily implied the statement "whatever helps us win a war against our government should be publicly available." By disagreeing with this premise, he is disagreeing with his own argument, as he's offered no alternative syllogism, no alternative way to validly reach the conclusion he wants us to reach.I encourage him to present his own syllogism if he feels this one does not accurately represent his words; however, I feel strongly that it does and that I've proven it does.Finally, I'd like to address his entirely inaccurate claim that the negation of the premise "Everything which helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available" is "Everything which helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be banned." For every statement, there exists its negation, which affirms the opposite; of a factual statement and its negation, one must be true and one must be false, not both and not neither. Logically, the negation of this first premise is "Not everything which helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available," which is a far cry from the incorrect answer my opponent produced.We can clearly see that the negation I gave shares a particular relationship with the first premise, in that one must be true and the other false; my opponent's proposed negation does not share that same relationship with the first premise. His error in logic is akin to claiming the negation of "all bananas are yellow" is "all bananas are green." Neither of these are true. In reality, the negation is simply "not all bananas are yellow;" some are yellow, others are green, and others still are brown. How magical.I also object that baseballs and pencils help citizens deter government tyranny, as my opponent implies, but that's barely here nor there.Source:[1] https://www.forbes.com...