In my opinion the anit-stand your ground group argued their side better. I chose 3 arguments that stood out to me and formed my opinion.
First of all the con side showed how thew passage of the stand your ground law was twisted and used in such a way that mislead many legislators. This demonstrated that those who supported this law were not totally honest with the Floridian legislature and hurt their ethos.
Secondly the argument that more guns means people are safer stuck out to me. In my eyes the more civilians with guns the more complicated the job of a police officer can be. It is harder to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are if both sides are shooting at each other. The pro side also constantly referenced the defend your castle law which was not the subject of the debate a was a waste of speaking time.
Finally, the con side demonstrated how easy it was to obtain a gun and the permit to conceal it. Texas, known to be very gun-happy, has fewer conceal and carry permits than florida, the home of the stand your ground law. This showed how radical the law is and labeled it as out of the ordinary, which in my opinion, is very convincing.
One of the main reasons I side with the anti-stand your ground group, is because their opponents did not argue the same topic consistently and it lead to a very random and hard to follow argument.