CreateDebate


Debate Info

66
55
Should Not a right
Debate Score:121
Arguments:102
Total Votes:141
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Should (47)
 
 Not a right (40)

Debate Creator

Mangojuice(90) pic



Government should provide guns as free healthcare protection

Should

Side Score: 66
VS.

Not a right

Side Score: 55
1 point

Rights are a moral construct. If you would not take moral guidance from a politician, then you ought not take Rights as a governmental endowment.

Side: Should

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution so the gubament should provide us with guns. It is a form of healthcare, too. For example, if a half-crazed, spittle-spewing liberal comes to do damage to your person or property, a gun will preserve your health by eliminating a threat to it.

This is like killing 2 birds with one stone. Free gun and free healthcare in one fell swoop.

I rest my case.

That was easy.

Side: Should
1 point

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms derives from the natural right of self defense. That doesn't mean the government gives you a gun, nor does it mean that the government will defend you individually from other individuals. It means that your right to self defense is protected by law.

The right to healthcare goes no further than your right to freely associate and trade with medical professionals. That doesn't mean you have the right to take healthcare from others via the government.

If there is anything that is given to you by the government (as opposed to protected for you by the government), then it is a privilege. The right to such is a statutory right only.

This post is for BL who demanded an explanation of this just as he banned me.

Side: Not a right
Jody(1792) Disputed
2 points

The right to healthcare goes no further than your right to freely associate and trade with medical professionals. That doesn't mean you have the right to take healthcare from others via the government.

What “others”? Basic health care is a fundamental human right and is covered (or should be by taxes )

If there is anything that is given to you by the government (as opposed to protected for you by the government), then it is a privilege. The right to such is a statutory right only.

It’s not “given “ it’s paid for , it’s incredible to think your country spends billions a year on arms and your money aids in that and you don’t mind yet you and a sizable amount of Americans rabidly resist the idea of universal health care .....you’re very strange people

Arms exporters have arranged it so that the American public pays $6-7 billion annually to market and finance sales of their product. On top of that, the public bears the costs of researching and developing the weapons in the first place

Great isn’t it ?

This post is for BL who demanded an explanation of this just as he banned me.

You ban everyone on your debates and deny them a right to reply hows it feel?

Side: Should
Amarel(5563) Disputed
1 point

What do you mean by "fundamental human right?" ?

Side: Not a right
redhot(236) Disputed
1 point

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms derives from the natural right of self defense.

It is not possible to debate you on this topic because you appear to be trying to force language into the conversation which is inaccurate to the point that it is simply bizarre.

It is a matter of fact that guns were invented to take life. They were not invented to give life. They were invented to take life.

And yet, your first line is a head-scratching attempt to turn this simple principle upside down. You have presented guns as something which preserve life rather than something which take life. It is such a gross distortion of language and reason that it renders discussion all but impossible. If you cannot even accept what the design purpose of guns is then how can you expect to have a discussion?

My "right" to self-defence does not stipulate that I should have a gun. It stipulates that everyone else around me should not have a gun, because that endangers my life.

Side: Should
Mongele(643) Disputed
1 point

You really need to get your message circulated to the warlike nations of the world and explain to them that they must either dispose of, or decommission all their weaponry forthwith.

It would also be helpful if you would embark on a series of coast to coast roadshow lectures supplemented with a nationwide television and radio advertising campaign targeting gangsters, muggers and psychopathic murders demanding that they surrender their firearms along with any other lethal weapons they may possess.

The problem occurs when just as you're feeling secure with your trusty umbrella as a form of defence you bump into a jolly nasty chap who missed out on your anti-gun promotional lectures, cuts your gizzard out with a machete' then shoots your balls off with his .38 Smith & Wesson.

At some point during that encounter you may find your sanctimonious self wishing you'd brought the glock-18 your granny gave you for your birthday present.

If, per chance you had prudently brought your granny's present and had used it successfully and survived the confrontation would you concede that you used it in ''self-defence?

Side: Not a right
Amarel(5563) Disputed
0 points

It is not possible to debate you on this topic

At least not successfully.

You've presented this goofy line of reasoning before where you believe an action can only qualify as self defense if the act is strictly defensive. That's not true. You can punch a person to get them to stop attacking you. That's self defense where an offensive act is used. If one must defend thier self or others from a lethal aggressor, then a lethal offensive act my be the most effective form of self defense. That's why cops have guns.

A cop having a gun does not endanger your life in modern developed nations. However, no one but the military having a gun can, and often has endangered the lives of the citizens historically. That's a circumstance where the cops gun is a threat, and there's really only one way to counter it.

What's with the alt Nom, were you pre-banned? Kinda hard to respond to something in a place you were banned from huh.. But I suppose alts are nothing new for you.

Side: Not a right
1 point

We're God's Picture Book, New Zealand's finest boudoir photography company.

Supporting Evidence: https://godspicturebook.com/ (godspicturebook.com)
Side: Not a right