Private Citizens should be armed in public

1. b. In this round I will do the following: I will first give a summary of the issues of debate thus far, I will refute my opponent's arguments and finally I will defend the attacks my opponent made against my case. 2. Summary of the debate thus far a. Silence is compliance; My opponent has accepted my framework and definitions, thus they are no longer issues of debate. b. Pro's current arguments are as follows: Second amendment rights, Security and Legality c. Con's current arguments are as follows: People kill people, guns are pretty scary and Slippery Slope of Ownership. 3. Refutations- a. People kill people i. Social contract theory will be in place regardless of whether or not you look at the world of the affirmative or the world of the negative[6]. Keeping this in mind, we understand that people are not going to randomly start killing others just because guns are now legal. ii. This argument makes the assumption that people are just out to kill one another; if you accept this premise then it will happen either way. This isn't a unique argument, and accordingly is a reason to vote Con. iii. Understanding that this argument is fundamentally flawed, we also understand that it's an appeal to fear[7]; a rejection of something because of a fear of what may happen. You must reject arguments which appeal to fear as they are emotional arguments without a true logical or empirical warrant. [6] bit. ly/2nxh2b [7] bit. ly/3pCqfE b. Guns are pretty scary i. This is an appeal to fear[7], plain and simple. Reject these emotional arguments. ii. Extend across my legality argument, in all but one state it is legal to carry a concealed handgun[5]; if you want to accept this argument, Con must defend that this fear exists in the status quo and is still a voting issue for Con. c. Slippery Slope of ownership i. Employing a slippery slope argument can be seen in basically every argumentative circle as a logical fallacy[8]. This is when one takes a logical syllogism that has no real warrant to it an posits it as a sincere argument. At the point there is no warrant aside from the claim, it's a fallacy. ii. I really wish I had more say here, but without a real warrant to refute I'm just going to keep saying the same thing. [8] bit. ly/ZKFKN 4. Refutations- a. Second amendment rights i. This argument served two purposes -- first, to preempt arguments of legality and second, to establish an urgency of protection of rights. The preempted purpose wasn't an issue this can be stricken from the flow, however the second argument of protecting rights is still an issue to vote on. ii. The argument of affirming rights by continuing to practice them wasn't refuted, but attacked with the logical fallacy Reductio ad Absurdum[9]. My opponent disregards my argument by comparing it to jumping off a cliff, but jumping off a cliff isn't a constitutional right that is an issue of debate here. The right to bear arms is. [9] bit. ly/3sO8a3 b. Security i. The attack here is an issue of my opponent rejecting my argument entirely under the warrant that it's irrelevant. Con claimed that my cross-application impact isn't a legitimate because the study wasn't conducted with concealed handguns; however this isn't the case as the study showed that when homes have guns the security they experience extends into their community as a deterrent for crime to happen[4]. ii. The link here is perfectly acceptable and shouldn't be rejected. c. Legality in the status quo i. Not understanding my argument isn't a sound refutation, there is not attack. ii. Extend the refutations on my second amendment argument. 5. Underview- For the most part logical fallacies don't occur by malicious nature, but by oversight and omission - Reduction ad Absurdum however is an unacceptable tactic and should not be accepted. Please let con know this through your conduct voter.