That we should allow individuals to use violent force to defend their homes, even where they do not fear for personal safety

ultimate.debater (PRO)

Hello, my name is Brandon and I am proudly defending the affirmation side of this debate, and before starting I would like to thank my opponent for becoming part of this debate. But, without further of do, I would like to start my short analytical argument.

Definitions:
“That we should allow individuals” – this phrase in the debate is proposing the change in law to be able to help people create a decision without proper punishment
“use violent force” – violent force is anything that is used to create harm to another individual using any form of weapons
“defend their homes” – this would allow for a person that is the owner of their household to be able to defend themselves against harm
“not fear for personal safety” – this is used to show how personal thoughts are included, but also more universal to this whole debate
SO, in summary this debate is allowing individuals to properly defend their own paid households against harm, including their owns selves, others, the items, etc.

Observations
So, by taking a look at the resolution, one may notice the following obvious
perspective ideology:

• The individual should be allowed to defend themselves, others, and items they hold, or others hold that are inside the house hold.
• It is important for the government to allow and uphold the second amendment (the right to bear arms)
• It is unfair to limit the individuals freedom to a life when being upheld in a situation without defensive circumstances.

Standard for Evaluation
Net benefits, for if we are able to maintain the second amendment towards defensive and offensive rights, all will benefit, including government and the individuals. B, if we are not able to allow this then the perspective right to life that all individual human bodies hold is ultimately lost.

1: Defensive Rights and Offensive Rights
All humans should be allowed to defend items, whether it be something or someone, or most importantly their own selves. This would allow the create a stronger sense of privacy, defense, and safety. The defensive rights are not something that the government either fights for or does not, it is also an instinct. It is sometimes an adrenaline for animalistic instincts that allows for us humans to be able to defend ourselves with or without weapons.

MORE WILL COME LATER!!!

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-01-17 13:37:53

| Speak Round