Resolved: that guns should not be allowed to felons

This will be very interesting indeed because of its very unique nature. I look forward to his/her rebuttal. And also, as a forewarn, if there is some issue on my interpretation of the wordings, please see Caveat below. I must also urge the voters to remember to read Voting Standards after reading my contentions. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY! !! ! Let's have fun :D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fairness I'd like to first point out the apparent discrepancy between the resolution the opponent is supporting and the actual position that he/she is arguing. This is a blatant and flagrant invasion of CON ground, as he/she would be able to abusively change stance at whim. Therefore, CON should automatically have the win. But as is courtesy of debate, I will address HIS/HER argument. I will assume that the PRO is for felons owning guns and that the resolution is to be rephrased as thus: "Resolved: that guns should be allowed to felons. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition Should: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): . http://dictionary.reference.com... Felon: a purulent infection at the end of a finger or toe in the area surrounding the nail . http://www.google.com...= Gun: A gun is a muzzle or breech-loaded projectile-firing weapon. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Allow: let have; "grant permission"; "Mandela was allowed few visitors in prison" wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Burden Of Proof: On the Instigator/PRO. The opponent must prove that felons must have guns. He/She must be able to effectively defend against all of CON's rebuttal/rebuke. Failure to do so equates to CON's victory. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 1: Inanimate Objects Cannot Own/Possess. 1) Inanimate objects cannot possess/own 2) That which does not move is inanimate [1] 3) Felons is an infection located at fingertip thus immobile. [2] 4) Felons are inanimate (2, 3) 5) Felons cannot possess/own (1, 4) Felon cannot "have" guns, as it is an inanimate object--an infection. So there is no point in allowing them firearms. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]-. http://www.emedicinehealth.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 2: No Harms/Need. The opponent has yet to address why the felons need posses guns. Ignoring the (profile pic) that the notion is, the fact is, there is no viable reason as to why felons should ever possess guns. They are inanimate. There is not one hypothetical situation wherein they need to defend themselves. Thus, there is no reason for them to be allowed firearms. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 3: Felons are inherently harmful presence. Even if I were to concede that felons can indeed own, it would prove more harm than good to allow them to own firearm. Felons are infections on the human body (see Definition above). Infection both by definition proper and connotation is a malignant presence detrimental to the host--therefore human kind in general. Regardless of the impossibility of felons owning something, The effect of ownership of firearm by something that is adverse to humanity per se may be comparable to that of Al-Qaeda's possession of WMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOTING STANDARD The Voters must vote by the persuasiveness and coherency of the debater's argument and not by prejudice. Definition Prejudice: any preconceived opinion or feeling . http://dictionary.reference.com... Opinion: A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue . http://www.google.com... Topic: the subject or theme of a discourse or of one of its parts. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Topic is Felon. Opinion is voter's thought on what felon is. Prejudice is voter's preconceived thought on what felon is. Prejudice does not meet voting standard. Ergo, the voter's preconceived thought on what felon is should not affect this debate. As the "King of harassing people" put it, "You don't vote based on pity or based on your own opinions prior to the debate, but who did a better job with the argument. "[1] The voter is to judge only per strength of argument. [1] . http://www2.picturepush.com.... (8th comment) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caveat The fact that opponent failed to define the terminology in the first round meant that he/she was leaving the debate open to the interpretation of the CON. The opponent cannot and should not offer a radically alternative definition to the debate in the second round, as it will most definitely breach CON's argumentation and ability to argue against it. What he/she can do is offer a slight modification of the terms in the context of which the terms are already defined.