For the debate on Wednesday, I vote in favor of the "con" side.
1. The con side had the most clearly articulated argument. At times, the pro side were merely providing stories that didn't directly work toward their goal. The lack of focus when arguing why the gun laws were specific enough was evidence enough that the laws were not specific enough.
2. The con side used a wider variety of measures to support their side. They mentioned that the police force was against the legislation in the first place, they had statistical data to support that the laws have reduced those found guilty of murder compared to justifiable homicide, and they used select, pertinent stories to illustrate how these scenarios work.
3. The con side was more on-point as they responded to each group member's relevant ideas. In contrast, the pro side often did not acknowledge the points that had just been made in the debate or try to refute them as directly, so their credibility was not as strong for how well they understood the material and how strong they felt about their argument.