Challenge me.

"Unfortunately, my opponent wants to debate "how we should debate the resolution" rather than the resolution itself." --To win this debate, perhaps my opponent could have expressed why exactly this is a problem. I don't see how debating frameworks and interpretations are an automatic loss. Perhaps my opponent could explain to me where these rules are coming from. "Since my opponent has twice declined to post an actual argument, I will do the honors." --It disappoints me that my opponent sees my two initial posts as lacking "an actual argument." I think this would have been a much better debate had we settled on a framework that created a better forum for debate. Instead, we are left with mere ignorance and a lackluster debate on the resolution. --I've expressed my concerns with the parameters set in the initial round. They have gone completely untouched. They aren't an issue to my opponent. For this reason alone, I hope that those reading this debate will consider how much worse that made this debate. You can vote for me simply because I was interested in a good debate. If everyone is debating like Rougeagent, this site becomes a little bit less fun. --EXTEND ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS FROM THE LAST ROUND. Now, to address my opponent's last post (Sure...they are new arguments...but my opponent said may the best debater win): "Guns should be legal to own in America for the following reasons..." --Ummm...Is this the resolution? Now it's all about legality? I thought we were debating "Resolved: United States citizens should be allowed to own firearms." This really changes things up. New definitions come in play. This is where the character limit becomes a factor. No matter how skilled of a debater I am, changing the debate is an abusive tactic that makes the debate a lot less fun. A. LEGALITY 1. "Citizens are given the right by our governing document in its second amendment." --OK, so my opponent is saying that guns should be legal to own in America because...they have the right to? This doesn't even begin to prove the resolution. Saying that we should do things because we have the right to do something is pretty ridiculous. Just because I have the right to call for a prostitute in Nevada doesn't mean I "should". --Would my opponent be an advocate of slavery? "Fascinating Fact: The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights." (http://civilwar.bluegrass.net...) P.S. If you are, that's a different debate. --So basically, things change. I advocate that we should leave the guns to only military and police personnel. They are the ones who are trained to use them. Here's what we should do: Just give everyone but military and police personnel squirt guns. That way, everyone would have guns and everyone would be happy. Think of it as being "separate but equal" or something like that. Wait...that was in the constitution at one point too, wasn't it? 2. "Right to self-defense" "I have not the room to post the case, so please consider this document as part of my case. It is essential to the debate." --LOL...SO I'm running out of space for my posts because of my opponent's abusive debate style, and, meanwhile, he is asking me to consider a full web-page of argumentation away from this site? Read the quote he posted that states the second amendment verbatim. If you look closely, the "security of a free state" comes right after "a well regulated Militia." It says absolutely nothing about everyone being able to defend themselves with guns. In fact, I would say that this effectively turns his case. I understand the importance of a well regulated militia. I think that they are the only ones who should be dealing with guns. "I have the duty and the right to protect myself, and those under my protection. If I fail to do so, I am failing as a citizen. In order to fulfill my duties and my rights, I must retain the right to own firearms. Thank you." --LOL...so people who aren't able to protect themselves fail as citizens? Maybe you wish that were true. Geez, it might actually be kinda nice. Unfortunately, we live in an era when people help each other when they can't fend for themselves--we don't just shoot people. ***CONCLUSION: Alright, so this debate was alright. I'm happy that someone accepted it. I think it would have been much better if my opponent would have considered my arguments. I think I win on two levels. First, my opponent is going to say that I'm bringing up new evidence and arguments. It's a valid point, but consider this: my opponent has, until now, decided to actually start debating the resolution. It's abusive and it makes this a terrible debate. Next, I should win just because I have been in favor of an open-minded debate. This debate has just been full of dropped arguments by the PRO. For that reason alone, I should win this debate. So even if you don't like that I refuted his arguments in the final round, you have to consider all of the ones he dropped prior to it. Interesting debate. Could have been better.