I had some fun in Speech Class Yesterday

[Roadwild17]

In our speech classes at Louisiana Tech, the have what is called a "blacklist", topics that aren't allowed in class. The list includes stuff like gay marriage, politics, capital punishment, religion, abortion, you know all the good stuff. The prof. put all of them into a hat, and guess what was pulled out, gun control.

The class then divided into pro and con gun control sides and we started a debate. I know I was in trouble because out of 27 people in the class only 6 were pro gun and 21 were antis.

The rules were NO EMOTION & all arguments had to based on FACTS

The prof. started the debate, "all gun should be band!"

The antis say all guns should be band because they kill people.

My response was, "baseball bats kill people every year, are we going to stop playing baseball?"

Some baseball player on the antis side said something that made no sense and the prof. asked him to leave the debate because of emotional displays.

The antis then said something how without guns, BGs wouldn't kill as often.

I countered with something like, "In Africa there is killing on ethnic scales, and its all done without a gun, humans are creative and will find ways to kill each other no matter what laws there are."

I then added "Do you think a person who has already killed someone is going to worry that the tool they use to kill someone is illegal?"

We continued on like this for about 2 hours until the class time was up. The ending count we still had 5 gunneys and they had 5 antis. All of the rest of the antis were either asked to leave because of emotion, left themselves, or became neutral in the debate.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

One thing a lot of anti(insert object here) folks don't get is this:

A non living thing of ANY kind CAN NOT have a moral disposition, period. If you are basing your argument on facts, the argument ends right there.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Congratulations! I would call that a "near-win" for our side, and a loss for the antis.

The antis have a tough time debating without using emotion because the facts are not on their side.

 

[Handgun Midas]

The whole thing should have been videotaped and pasted on Youtube for everybody to learn from.
Face blurs could be used to protect the identities of the ignorant.

Your prof sounds like a good guy.

 

[VaughnT]

I got to do this once and had a blast. I was the only pro-gun person in the high school class and decided to use gun control as an example of dislogical discussion.

After a few minutes of talking about reason and logic, one girl just wouldn't give up the idea that guns are the root of all evil.

I asked her to join me in a demonstration that would prove one of us right. She agreed.

I took a marker off of the teacher's desk and asked her to place her hand up on the blackboard where everyone could see it. I then placed a small dot of ink on the back of her hand so that everyone could see it.

I then asked her who or what was responsible for putting that dot of ink on her hand. She said that I was responsible...turned a bit red in the face and sat down. Point made. Case closed.

The marker is an inanimate object that could not stain her skin without my direction. A gun is no different.

 

[torpid]

Excellent!

But remember it's "banned", not "band".
Unless the intent is to use the guns as instruments.

 

[Hoppy590]

congrats youve lived a gunnys dream. shutting anti's up, and more importantly making them use logic, not emotion

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

99% of the anti's arguments are based on emotion. That's an excellent idea of the prof. to take that out of the equation.
I applaud professors that teach you to listen and learn, process the information, and form your own opinion rather than be told their views. We need less lemmings in colleges.

 

[Wiley]

Roadwild17,

For more fun and a real education, ask the Prof. to redo the debate, same rules, same premiss but, everybody switches sides. Pros argue for banning, anti's argue against.

 

[Caimlas]

Good job! I wager that if you'd been given a couple more knowledgeable 'pro gun' people (even one more), and had the debate lasted another hour, you'd have won the argument hands down.

Hopefully it's to continue next class with the remaining numbers intact.

 

[Caimlas]

For more fun and a real education, ask the Prof. to redo the debate, same rules, same premiss but, everybody switches sides. Pros argue for banning, anti's argue against.

Enlighten me - how would such a debate turn out? I can't even begin to think of a reasonable argument for gun control other than taking the argumentative perspective that gun control helps control the society at large, allowing the government more 'disgression' in it's rule. That, in turn, would set up the antis to argue for guns on the "stoping a totalitarian government" perspective.

Either that or the antis would be stonewalled from the opening argumentative statement of the pro-gunners arguing for gun control.

Or is that what you meant?

 

[SDC]

Enlighten me - how would such a debate turn out?

Actually, this has some merit; if the "antis" have to do a little bit of thinking, they'll quickly come to the realization that THEIR arguments are all emotional, and nothing more.

 

[gunsmith]

gun control is very resonable if you want to control people

I can't even begin to think of a reasonable argument for gun control

If you want all power to reside in the hands of the police and military then gun control is very reasonable.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Next time, have a pro-RKBA cofederate feed you softball questions!

 

[Libertyteeth]

Yes, the argument for gun control could go something like:

"Oh, I know gun control doesn't really protect people from street crime and so forth, but really the issue is one of power and whether the right people wield it and can mantain control. If we allow the rabble to own personal weapons the society would be chaotic and ungovernable, all in the name of supposed freedom. But freedom at the level of the property, enterprise, and personal rights of the peasants who are not part of the ruling elite, is not compatible with an ordered society run in a rational manner by those who are destined to rule."

 

[MachIVshooter]

Unless the intent is to use the guns as instruments

I don't know about everyone else, but the repetetive concussion of firearms discharging is music to my ears

........Unless I don't have hearing protection

100% of the anti's arguments are based on emotion

There. Fixed it.

 

[up_onus]

that would be fun fun fun! i would say twice as fun as goin to the range...(prolly because i never get to have a sweet debate like that!)

oh yah...
www.gun-facts.info
This site will refute ANY ( well almost any ) anti...with facts facts facts....
albeit its a tid bit pro-gun ownership

 

[Billll]

At least one heavy metal guitarist had an insrument shaped like an AK. I remember the picture, but not the band. Possibly KISS?

 

[AirForceShooter]

Good for the Professor.

AFS

 

[Glock_10mm]

I''ve noticed the ANTI'S are driven mostly on fear and misinformation. One of my best friends was very antigun, but not because of any issue related to him, that I know if (ie parents not shot down or anything). He just bought into the Clinton error propaganda (did I mean era...no) of the 90's.

We got into a heated debate where if he was being punched would he punch back? Eventually, when it got life threatening, I got him to say yes. I then compared it to guns. I explained that drawing a gun is not just to flaunt, but is life threatening. and that drawing back is simply meeting force with force, just as punching back would be. Then I stated if a guy had a gun and drew it, and he had a gun what would he do, he said draw back, but then I reminded him he didn't have a gun and that the bad guys out there do. Long story short, we go to the range together all the time.

It was about 3 years of going to the range with me before he bought a gun, but he now has a P99 9mm and a mossberg 500. He doesnt have anywhere near the level of interest I have, nor does he wish to read gun mags or forums like this, but he is now on our side of the line.

I think he had to just understand the facts, and get over the fears he had (mostly based on the misconceptions).

Its a little corny but its a true story! We all just need to do our part to inform the antigun public of the facts.