It's the ability to reproduce that is one of the defining features of life. Stopping the act of reproduction through abortion does not go against that ability, as the mother, (and humans as a species), are still able to reproduce.

Also, you would have to be against any form of contraception if you stick to your argument. Maybe you are.

This is a myth that has been long dispelled. Humans develop gill slits when in the womb, but they are NOT gills and not functional. I believe the idea you are referring to is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", a theory prevalent around the turn of the 19th to 20th century. It has long been shown false - fetuses are never fish.

"You just contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Hunting, by definition and as a prerequisite, harms other creatures"

I guess my statement wasn't clear. What I meant is that weapons were not first invented to harm humans. They were first invented for hunting animals for food. I bring up this point because if one defines hunting as good (perhaps because it is an important source of food), then the initial intention of weapons was good for humans. Harmful to animals, yes, but good for humans. I pointed it out because if hunting is considered a good thing, your point, while literally correct, does not argue against the "more good" position.

"They were invented to kill people, not point at people so they will leave you alone.

I am not attempting to measure the exact amount of harm and good done by weapons and guns because it's pretty self-evident. They kill people. Easily. They were invented to wage war."

I have to reiterate the same point before. You're making a non sequitor fallacy here. You are arguing (I assume) that "Weapons were intended for harm, therefore they must be more harmful than good." This does not follow. It is certainly possible that they could be intended for harm yet end up being used more for good.

"If a weapon was originally created to do good, then it would not be a weapon."

This statement makes it easy to show the fallacy you keep making. I imagine there are loads of examples, here is a clear-cut one. Rockets were first invented in order to make it out of the earth's atmosphere and explore space. However, in both world wars, rockets were used extensively by the nazis as weapons. Yes, the same invention that allowed us to reach the moon was used as weapons in both world wars. By your statement, the rockets in both world wars were not weapons, which is clearly not the case. The reason that a rocket can be a weapon is that it can be USED as a weapon. Initially rockets were intended for good, but people USED them as a weapons. Anything can be a weapon if it is USED as one. If I took the "inherently good" armor off of my body and starting beating someone with it, it would be a weapon - an offensive tool, something used for harm. The point being, armor cannot be inherently good - I can use it for evil, harmful things if I choose.

Now you might think back and say "Yeah, but the initial purpose of rockets or body armor was not to harm, but the initial purpose of guns WAS to harm." Yes, this is true, but the same logic applies. When one takes a gun and USES it to defend innocent children, it becomes an agent for good because of its USE. This is not a fairytale. No thing/object, in and of itself, is inherently good or evil. The way that thing is used is what constitutes good or evil. Sure, some things like a gauntlet, poisonous gas, a flamethrower, etc, tend to be an agent of harm much more than good, but they are not harmful, in and of themselves. How are these things harmful until they are used for harm? Is a gun sitting on a rock for all of time harmful?

Therefore to address this argument, it becomes important to determine whether or not guns are USED more for harm or for good. This debate calls for us to look at the "exact amount of harm and good" guns are used for (statistics, reports, etc), even though you don't want to do this. It could also call for us to define exactly what acts are good and what acts are harmful.

"My point was that weapons make killing each other easier.

When you take away the ease, it the killing is reduced.

That's just logic."

Of course weapons make killing each other easier. They make defending each other easier as well. When you take away the ease, the ability to defend oneself is also reduced and we are more at the mercy of evil. My point was just concerned with dispelling the absurd assumption that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" in your hypothetical. Skip the argument to absurdity and just make your point.

"Everyone uses guns to kill and harm other people"

This is far from true. This would be close to true if you had said "Everyone uses guns with the intention of killing and harming others." (Still not true - many would have no desire to kill, only injure if necessary, and a few would have guns merely as defensive show, so that they would be safe without having to actually harm someone back).

This statement is still slanted to make it sound like people do not use guns for good.

Certainly there would be many cases where harming someone, or even killing someone, would be good. (e.g. Someone breaking into your home to hurt you or your family, someone trying to rape you or anyone on the streets, a psychopath roaming around a school intending to harm, a suicide bomber walking around in a mall, etc.) These are clear cut cases where guns injure the attacker but they are used for good, some specific, some more general.

Moreso, in many instances harm is actually completely absent because of guns. Just as their power is capable of inflicting harm, their power is able to prevent great harm by their mere threat. Humans, just like other animals, have strong instincts to survive and avoid conflict. The threat of a gun is an extremely powerful message to these instincts, and the majority of people will back down to it. A ton of harm can be prevented in these instances, something people would consider good.

"Was it not apparent that I was speaking hypothetically?"

Yes it was. Let's clear things up a bit. Purely hypothetically, I can't imagine I'd

disagree with you. The complete and total absence of weapons versus the presence of weapons would, presumably, result in less violence and harm. And if that's the sole purpose of this argument, we agree. However, I assumed that is not the purpose of this argument, because this hypothetical realization is pointless. I compared the metaphor to reality because I am hoping this debate is about reality. I interpreted the debate as "In our world, do guns cause more good or more harm?" In our world weapons are a fact and the alternative never will be. But if you want your hypothetical about weapons to be the endgame of this argument, sure, I agree with you. However, in our world and in our societies, where weapons inevitably exist, I am arguing guns are used more for good. Certainly they are used for evil sometimes, but the data seem to show they are used more for defensive reasons, and that generally means they are used to protect oneself/others.

Show me a compelling set of data (or interpretation of data) that makes it clear that guns are USED for harm more than good and I might change stances. I am far from grounded in my stance for this debate - the purpose of my initial response was more to argue against your discarding of Scout's statistics. I imagine our views on gun control would be closer than you'd think, but this debate isn't specifically about that.

"Weapons were made to harm before they were made to defend."

This is not true of weapons in general, at least as it pertains to humans. Weapons were first invented for hunting. Assuming you are referring to guns, which is the purpose of this debate, this specific statement is true. However, this point does not lead to the conclusion that guns cause more harm than good. Just as something made to be helpful can be used for harm (e.g. the discovery of nuclear fusion later being used to create the hydrogen bomb), something made to be harmful can be used moreso for good, as could be the case with guns.

"If we all suddenly had no weapons, and could never acquire weapons, I can assure you that the only violence that follows will be a few panicked fist fights that don't end in people getting killed, likely. At least, not as likely as people dying from everyone suddenly having a weapon."

You can assure this? First off, this is an impractical argument. Never will this be the case. People will always find a way to obtain weapons, and this being the case, people will need to defend themselves. This is the primary reason for guns today, as statistics show (see Scout's post).

Secondly, this is an absurd assurance. In other time periods when weapons were less readily available, people would be buried alive, brutally stoned to death, burned at the stake, thrown in pits/fed to animals, beaten to death by mobs, etc, none of which include the use of human-constructed weapons. Yet you are sure that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" if weapons didn't exist? History claims otherwise, as does the nature of humanity. Never underestimate humanity's depravity.

"If we all suddenly had a weapon, I can assure you that death and destruction would follow"

Death and destruction will be present whether weapons exist or not. Guns are used as a defense against the horrible nature of some people in our world. Only a few use guns for terrible reasons, but many use guns for protection against those few.