Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

I am going to start out with something that my opponent seems to be confused on. We determined that the phrase "in modern society" includes all aspects of society. We both agreed upon that. But when he says that I need to prove how guns are necessary in all aspects of society, he is wrong. He forgets that I am the con. As the pro, his job is to uphold the resolution. All of the resolution. He is for it, and I am against it. I am not trying to uphold any part of the resolution, he is trying to uphold it all. So when you look at what the burdens are, you see that he is indeed supposed to prove how guns are unnecessary in each of the six criterion provided. If he fails to uphold all six, then he has not upheld the resolution. As the negative, all I have to do is get the pro to not uphold the resolution, and I win. I can do that by only proving that guns are necessary in one of the six criterion provided. He says that you as a judge should not hold either of us to all, but rather whoever does the most. This sounds like a good idea, but it simply cannot happen. Don't let him change his burden this late in the game. His burden has always been to uphold every aspect of the resolution just like every other pro debater has to uphold every aspect of their resolution. It is as simple as the rules of the game. When my opponent specifically says ""modern society" has no other limiting adjective other than "in", and therefore refers to society and all of its respective components." then he makes his burden to be supporting all aspects of society. If that's what the resolution means, then he must uphold it. Now to talk about the six points of society. First I will discuss the two my opponent brought up, and then the four I brought up. 1. Inter-citizen relations: When you look to my last speech, I specifically said that my opponent never addresses this part of society. When you look to this round also, my opponent STILL never addresses this topic. This is the first place you are going to vote for the con. As soon as the pro doesn't uphold his burden by proving how guns are unnecessary in inter-citizen relations, then you cannot vote for him. If I were to start a debate that said public cameras are bad in banks and parks, but never addressed parks, then I cannot win that round as I haven't upheld the resolution. The same applies here. So that is the first, biggest, and easiest reason to vote for me. I should be able to stop, but so far I have used all 8,000 characters each time and would like to do that here as well. 2. Inter-societal relations: When you look to my last speech I gave three examples of inter-societal relations that used guns. None of them were addressed. When my opponent in his last speech says "Judge, its pretty clear to see that every single country that has existed since the 1500s has not relied upon guns to do its foreign affairs." Notice the EVERY in that sentence. Is it clear that EVERY country has not used guns? I don't think so. Especially since I have clearly provided three examples of countries that did. But now to disprove the examples my opponent just gave. Cuban-Missile crisis: we sent a blockade of naval ships and threatened to shoot down any ship that passed through our blockade. We sent marines to covertly overthrow their government in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs. The Chinese cannot be praised on their "negotiation" tactics especially with the overtaking of Tibet. And the cold war, we used what my opponent called metaphorical guns to end that one. It was a game of let's see whoever can get the most weapons the fastest. So yes, in all senses, his examples used guns. Now let's get some more examples. Myanmar protests. Six Day war Middle East. 1st Gulf War. WWI and WWII. Peru vs. Ecuador. French and Indian War. Dharfur. Congo. Just to name a few conflicts. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY has not used guns? I think not. And especially with the instances of both world wars I can see the fall of societies without the use of guns. So yes, in the instance of inter-societal relations, society falls without guns. It is proven through history. That again should be enough for me to win the round. Now I wish I had the space to argue the other four parts of society. Regrettably I do not. So I will now go to the ones I feel strongest about. National Identity: National Identity is what sets us apart from other countries. America is seen as the world's superpower. Why is that? Is it because of our economy? Probably not as our dollar is currently falling and is half as much as the pound, and the euro is one and a half times our dollar. Is it our size? Most definitely no, since we just got 300 million and China and India have already reached 1 billion. Is it our government? No, most other countries hate George Bush and his policies. So what then makes us so powerful? The answer is simple. It is our military. Teddy Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Our stick is the biggest. And we use it. So our national identity is also dependent upon our guns in this aspect. If for some reason we were to get rid of our guns, then our national identity would in fact no longer be there. We would have lost that part of our society. So this is a third example of how our society needs guns. So let's look at some analysis here on who should win the round and why. On the pro side you see that he must uphold every one of the six aspects of the resolution. You see that he is failing in inter-citizen relations as for the reasons stated above in this speech. You see that he is failing in inter-societal relations as per the reasons stated above in this speech. And lastly you see that he is failing in the National Identity aspect of society. With these three examples glaring, you see that the affirmative has not upheld his burden in proving guns unnecessary in three of the six criterions. This is more than enough to vote against him. But now let's look to the con side of the topic. Inter-societal relations is easily being won by me because my opponent failed to respond to my examples, and I showed how his examples did in fact use guns. National Identity also goes to me because I showed you how our National Identity collapses without guns because that is what our national identity is dependant upon. To be completely honest with you, there has been no argumentation from either side as to Inter-citizen relations, but the burden that guns aren't necessary in inter-citizen relations falls to my opponent since that is one of the six aspects of society he is supposed to proving guns aren't necessary to. (hopefully that last sentence made sense.) So there are three big, fat, ugly, reasons that the pro cannot win this round. In his last paragraph, he says that my arguments were based off of assumptions, ad hominem attacks, and flawed analysis. I would first like to say that I did not make any ad hominem attacks. And if I did, then I assure you that was completely unintentional and I am sorry. I would never mean to personally attack a fellow debater in round. I try to hold myself to a professional standard, and if I lacked in that aspect then I do honestly apologize. As for the other two, when you look to my argumentation you will see clear logic that backs up points that prove how guns are in fact necessary for modern society. I thank you for this absolutely wonderful debate. Possibly the best I have ever had on this site. I wish you luck in other rounds of the tournament. I would also like to thank the judge, yraelz, for taking his time and judging this round. I hope you appreciated this debate and didn't find it boring. If you have any comments or things to say, then pleas email me at bigfootjoke88 @ yahoo.com. Thank you again for this wonderful debate. VOTE CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!