In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Note: This round you may only address the attacks made in round 3 and no other rounds. Let's start with the main thing she hasn't addressed: How I said she was breaking the society. She never answered this before, so I am assuming that she agrees with this, and she hasn't attacked that, so count that as offense for me. Value: Justice is NOT a derivative of social justice. Since she has NO evidence stating so, we can't assume that my type of justice is a derivative. Social justice is a certain type of justice, and does not fall under justice. With that said, her justice is defined as "each given her due." My social justice is defined as "giving the common good." Thus, her justice falls before mine again because as I defined: Bittman,mark,"What is the purpose of society",2015 "Isn't everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn't we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?" Thus everyone getting their due relies on the WELL-BEING of citizens, gaining me some offense, thus it is really her value that falls before mine. Also, she never gives any evidence about why my value is less important, while I have given evidence, thus mine stand. Standard/Criterion: My opponent did not get my standard. I am not stating that we should look to look at the past. I am saying we must uphold the process of the society, uphold the steps on how something works, ie: baking a cake 1. Separate eggs. Allow egg whites to stand at room temperature for 30 minutes (reserve yolks for another use). Meanwhile, grease three 8x1-1/2-inch round cake pans. Line bottoms of pans with parchment paper. Grease parchment paper and lightly flour pans; set aside. In medium bowl stir together flour, baking powder, baking soda, and 3/4 teaspoon salt; set aside. 2. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. In large mixing bowl beat butter with electric mixer on medium to high for 30 seconds. Add sugar and vanilla; beat until well combined. Add egg whites all at once; beat on medium-high 3 minutes. Alternately add flour mixture and buttermilk to butter mixture, beating on low after each addition just until combined (batter may look slightly curdled). Divide batter among prepared pans. (If you do not have three pans, refrigerate remaining batter until ready to use.) 3. Bake in preheated oven 30 to 35 minutes or until a wooden toothpick inserted near centers comes out clean. Cool cakes in pans on wire racks 10 minutes. Remove layers from pans. Cool thoroughly on racks. 4. Frost with desired frosting. Store, covered, in refrigerator. Makes 16 servings. I am saying that we need to follow the steps of the society, like we do cake. If we don't, the whole thing falls and is not successful, thus I gain offense. My opponent tries to twist my standard to make it look bad, but it doesn't work. My contentions: My opponent misunderstands my ENTIRE contentions. Individualism definitely relates to if we should ban guns or not because owning guns is a individualist right. Thus, I am stating that this is an individualist right, and since individualism is harming the environment, then we shouldn't use it. My opponent never really attacks this; she just dismisses it with the logical statement, ' how can we say that guns are a significant part of that 33%, when we are offered no ways to assess it?' I am NOT saying that guns harm the environment; I am saying that owning guns are an individualist right, and it harms the environment. Thus, I gain offense here. Now I'd like to take a step back from her Daniel Quinn card. What is the resolution asking us to debate today. "Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned." Not, "Private ownership of agriculture ought to be banned." She tries to say I have no solvency but I do. I am saying that if we restrict individualism, which is related to owning guns, we can help the environment, and prevent the ecological crunch. Infinite regression definitely links back to social justice. Again, tie my point back here. " I am not stating that we should look to look at the past. I am saying we must uphold the process of the society, uphold the steps on how something works" My value of infinite regression ties back due to the fact we must follow the path of a society where, Bittman,mark,"What is the purpose of society",2015 " everyone (is)owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens(.)? " Thus, I am following the path of the society. The neg inherently violates it. This ties back because if we follow the path of the society, we are being guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens, thus promoting social justice. Contention 2:Individualism definitely harms. Just because your evidence is newer doesn't mean it is better. My evidence did hard core conducted studies, what yours didn't have. Capitalism She CONCEDED with my evidence! She said it was correct and she attacks it with NO evidence. She only says, "However, the link story that you are giving is incredibly weak and is actually not correct when you look at the actor of the resolution; banned is defined as being prohibited by law (I can card this if you so please), therefore the actor is the US. " Ok? Interesting. I am pointing a flaw in the resolution; capitalism is bad. You only say that the link story is weak. Ok. Have you provided any link stories? You then remark with a very offensive comment:"the affirmative is flawed by Zizek (a self-proclaimed communist, might I add!)." How rude! I am Canadian Gun violence is bad Lexus states, "might be completely true" How rude! I searched a long time for it. Let's add in another card then: Handguns were defined as a firearm, thus my evidence is accurate Handguns are most likely used in a murder/crime Dixon, Nicholas. "Why We Should Ban Handguns In The United States." 1993. "(H)andguns were used in 77.2% of murders involving firearms and 49.5% of all murders in the United States." Thus, it is likely that they were handguns, which is why we should ban them. I gain some offense here. Sexist Ok? Now that was only a form of taking one quote out to make the entire thing bad. You can't deny that that that was bad, thus I still gain offense. Let's add evidence to my argument. Kumar Ramanathan, 2013 "This Daisy Air Rifles ad is targeted primarily at mothers, and promises that "millions of clean-cut, alert American boys" grew up on their product, developing "character and manliness." By attaching a concept of gun ownership to "manliness" and hammering home the idea that boys develop "strength" through shooting, ads like this one perpetuate the social norm that guns and violence are integral to masculinity." As seen guns are also sexist to boys to develop some sort of 'character and manliness.' Add on to, Stampler 12 "Adam Lanza brandished a Bushmaster AR-15 when he murdered 27 women and small children in Newtown. This is how that weapon is marketing to the general public. Magazine ads equate owning the gun to being a man." They are sexist to men, and they then dehumanize anyone different Suicide She agrees on me with the cost, thus I gain offense. People do have the right to die. It does fall under social justice because people are constantly looking for the common good. If that one person is hindering, we must thus let him/her have a happy death for us to end our mourning/suffering, thus gaining me offense. Supreme Court of the United States 1996 "(P)erson has a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment in choosing to end intolerable suffering by hastening the timing of an inevitable death," thereby showing it benefits societal welfare So, let's list the offense i've won. Suicide Value Standard Contentions still stand- she has no evidence against my first one, but 2nd one has been proven Sexist Capitalism Violence My value is better than hers because again, hers goes under mine because everyone is due a common rights, which is what my value of social justices does. My value of infinite regression beats hers because I am following the path of the society to promote the common good, and minimizing arbitrary actions just falls under mine again, because she is also helping my society by following the path. She hasn't proved at all why handguns aren't arbitrary actions. Let's further links. Handguns caused rise in homicides Arredondo, 1999 "(T)he increase in youth homicides has been fueled by the use of handguns. The rate at which other types of guns (shotguns, rifles, etc.) and other types of weapons have been used to commit homicides has remained relatively stable since 1980. However, the trends are slightly different in Colorado. They differ from national trends in that the increase in youth handgun homicides was sharper and began at a later date . Most of the increases in youth homicide rates are handgunrelated,but unlike the nation, Colorado experienced a small increase in youth homicides involving other guns between 1983 and the early 90s, when they leveled off. Colorado has also experienced an increase in homicide with other weapons in the 1990s that was not present throughout the country." Thus, showing handguns increase violence. For all these reasons, vote Pro! `TheResistance http://www.bhg.com...