Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
Transcript of Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
1/394
Resolved: In the United
States private ownership of
handguns ought to be
banned.
Cham pion Briefs
January/February 2016
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
2/394
Copyright 2015 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
3/394
!"# %&'(#)*# +,-)(-.( /-)0-.123#4.0-.1 5678
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 9
!"# %&'(#)*# +,-)(-.(
"#$$%& '() *$+',$ #-./0)$1 ' 2$'(0(3456 '() $)5%',0.('6 $7#$-0$(%$ ,. '66 8&. '-$ 0(/.6/$)9
:$; '1 $)5%',.-1 0( ,&$ %.225(0,
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
4/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 7
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,
!8% 9:;+"*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
5/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. R
J%,;,+"*=% H.,+ ,+"/+ L;+8 ="A;+"$;,HZ"++%HA+, "+ '+8%/ +"/G%+,
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
6/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 6
!8% ,%='*< "H%*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
7/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. O
9='*'H;= )'$$"A,% )".,%, N$'#"$ `.=$%"/ b"/ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 536
)'./+, "/% =$'GG%< L;+8 3*< "H%*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
8/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. K
N.* :;'$%*=% 8"AA%*, #%=".,% '( './ ,'=;%+0^, G$'/;(;="+;'* '( +8% H;$;+"/0 "*<
='*($;=+ /%,'$.+;'* +8/'.G8 ('/=%? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 57R
b% *%%< +' /%='G*;D% +8% ='**%=+;'* #%+L%%* H;$;+"/;,H "*< '+8%/ ('/H, '(
'AA/%,,;'*\ $;M% A':%/+0 "*< /"=;,H? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 576
=6>0&? @#-,/A 2! 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 954
E"* 8"*%$(QC%(%*,%Z8"/H, +' 8"*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
9/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. X
E"* G.* $"L, "/% ;*"
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
10/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 54
a;#%/"$ C%H'=/"=0 ;, "*"+8%H" +' +8% "
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
11/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 55
!8% A'$;=% ,8'.$< 8":% 8"*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
12/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 53
2;/%"/H #"*,
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
13/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5@
!8%/% 8", #%%* "
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
14/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 57
>+"+% ='*,+;+.+;'*, "+ +8% +;H% +8% )'*,+;+.+;'* L", /"+;(;%< 8"< A/'+%=+%< "
A/;:"+% /;G8+ +' 'L* " G.*QQ+8% "((^, ;*+%/A/%+"+;'* '( +8% )'*,+;+.+;'* +/%"+, +8%
>%='*< BH%*%='*< BH%*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
15/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5R
N':%/*H%*+ F'*'A'$0 '* 2'/=% ;, b'/,% ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? @46
!8%/% ;, *' T.,+;(;="+;'* ('/ :;'$"+;*G A/'A%/+0 /;G8+,Q ,"=/;(;=%, ('/ +8% ='HH'*
G''< %*< ;* +'+"$;+"/;"*;,H ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? @4O
!8;, ;, ,$":%/0\ %*"#$;*G G':%/*H%*+, +' $;+%/"$$0 'L* "*< H"$$ :;'$"+;'*, '( $;#%/+0 "/% '*$0 ,H"$$ (/'H " ='$$%=+;:;,+ ,+"*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
16/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 56
N.* ='*+/'$ ;, 8;,+'/;="$$0 /"=;,+ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? @@5
I$"=M, *%%< 8"*
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
17/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5O
C%/;:;*G A'$;+;=, (/'H ,%=./;+0 %=./;+0 +8/%"+, "/% *'+ '#T%=+;:%Z+8%0 "/% ,'=;"$$0 ='*,+/.=+%< ???????????????????????? @R@
C'*]+ +"M% "((;/H"+;:% +/.+8Q=$";H, "+ ("=% :"$.%Z+8%0 "/% ,'=;"$$0 ='*,+/.=+%<
+''$,\ *'+ '#T%=+;:%
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
18/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5K
b% *%%< +' S.%,+;'* +8% ;+'A "*< (/;,M ;, ,A%=;(;="$$0 .,%< +' %*('/=% L%"A'*, $"L, ???????????????????????????????????? @O@
I$"=M, "*< E;,A"*;=, L%/% ,+'AA%< H',+ ;* ,+'A "*< (/;,M A'$;=;%, ;* `%L l'/M ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? @O7
>+'A "*< (/;,M ;, H'/% $%*;%*+$0 .,%< +'L"/+'A "*< (/;,M $"L, ,A%=;(;="$$0 +"/G%+ H;*'/;+;%, ('/ =/;H%, +8%0 +'A "*< (/;,M $"L, ,A%=;(;="$$0 +"/G%+ H;*'/;+;%, ('/ =/;H%, +8%0 +'A "*< (/;,M $"L, ,A%=;(;="$$0 +"/G%+ H;*'/;+;%, ('/ =/;H%, +8%0
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
19/394
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5X
J"=;,H #0 +8% ,+"+% "$$'L, ('/ .*='*+/'$$%< "#.,%, '( A'L%/ ???????????????????????????????? @KK
>+'A "*< (/;,M ;, /"=;,+ "*< ;*%((%=+;:% +'A "*< 2/;,M A'$;=;%, "/% /"=;,+ "*<
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
20/394
Topic Analyses
Cham pion Briefs
January/February 2016
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
21/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8:
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)(
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned
So I have noticed a collective groan from the debate community and, though I empathize
with everyone here, I am going to pitch a few advocacies and ways of interpreting the resolution
that will give sufficient flexibility to have fun debating this topic for the next two months. Before
I do this I think it is important to note that how you want to prep for this topic ultimately depends
on what your schedule is like for January-February. For those of you who are competing at
Blake, you should probably be hauling it right now given that its finals season and that
tournament is just around the corner. Last year everyone just read the Asian Floor Wage
affirmative and whatever generic CPs were lying around from camp (cough UBI).
I do not expect this year to be much different because students are operating in the same
constraints as before. In which case now is not the time to search for some far flung position that
is not supported by the topic literature, because you do not have time to go back and cut
something else and have frontlines and blocks ready by the time you have to compete. However,
if you are already comfortable running non-topical positions then forget what I said and go crazy
because the judging is actually conducive to that style of debate at this tournament, and people
do not have much time to prep you out because it is the first tournament on this topic. It is
important to add nuance the positions you defend enough that the generic prep-outs will not
apply.
As for the rest of the year, January-February is a grab bag of bids at tournaments like
Harvard, Stanford, Berkley, and Sunvite which are all great tournaments that attract a huge
number of students. With a huge number of students comes a lot of variance in terms of
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
22/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 88
competition and judging, which means that you need to think of dynamic case positions that can
apply to a number of opponents in front of different audiences. Many people like to imagine
these amazing case positions but forget that they have to read it in front of someone who has pre-
dispositions and biases. In that case, you want your initial case position to be something that can
be modified to fit your judges’ preferences. Or, you can just write multiple case positions
because there is a lot of judge variance. I think anyone who was at Berkley or did not catch
pneumonia at Harvard can remember the number of 3s turned into 1s. For those of you who have
not been to these tournaments yet just take my word for it. So now to address the elephant in the
room:
WHY HANDGUNS?!?!?!
No seriously, why handguns? There are literally so many other weapons that are more
dangerous that are not regulated by the state – such as flame throwers or 3D printers, which can
literally make any gun your heart can imagine if you buy a printer big enough. Others might also
ask why not ban all guns? Why specifically ban handguns? What have hand guns ever done?
Well the answer is quite simple: Handguns are easy to get (and they kill more people than flame
throwers) as Fields1 reports:
Although early figures are sketchy, in the century since the introduction of the double
action handgun, it may be fairly estimated that handguns have been used in over
half a million murders, almost twice that number of suicides and another 200,000
accidental deaths.7 Furthermore, over the past ten to fifteen years, handgun misuse
of all kinds has not only increased in absolute numbers, it has dramatically
increased in relation to the overall crime picture. Between 1966 and 1973, handgun
1 Fields 79’-Sam, HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND SOCIAL NECESSITY*
SAM FIELDS** 23 St. Louis U. L.J. 35 1979-
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
23/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8<
homicide as a percentage of overall homicide increased from thirty-seven percent to
fifty-two percent.
In fact, you might be surprised that handguns are still around because the ban of
handguns used to be considered a popular and socially desirable policy goal by a majority of
people in the U.S.2. And that is because handguns are good at killing people (they are easily
concealed and can be disposed of easily) and terrible in terms of self-defense because they are
ironically have little stopping power (making them useless in a firefight unless they also have
just a handgun), and yet kill thousands because they are inaccurate.
Because handguns have such a high potential of unintentionally going off, people put
their handguns somewhere safe ultimately undermining the gun’s ability to protect the owner as
most attackers will not be patient and wait for retrieval. The most comprehensive study on gun
ownership to date shows that owning a personal firearm increases your chances of being injured
or murdered3. Handguns are small and inaccurate which makes them a dangerous way of
defending yourself, and a huge liability to anyone with curious child or a clumsy debate coach
who just trips and falls. Those who are defenders of concealed carry laws conversely argue that
the fact that handguns can be concealed might make “law abiding” citizens safer without having
to advertise they own a gun constantly. Unlike assault rifles which are obviously meant for
suppression fire or killing many people, the handgun clearly invokes a more specific narrative
2 http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
3 Sigel 14’- James, The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Nonstranger Firearm
Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010, Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, Yamrot Negussie, Sarah
Vanture, Jane Pleskunas, Craig S. Ross, PhD, MBA, and Charles King III, JD, PhD October 2014, Vol
104, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health-
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
24/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8=
around the social desirability of banning what might be a murdering instrument or a tool of self-
defense.
Private Ownership
There are a lot of interesting takes on this argument, but I think affirmatives should look
into everyone that is publicly entitled by the state own and use a handgun (such as pilots) as
defense against the vast amount of counter plans trolly neg debaters will run. Negatives should
also look at where the law has said nothing because you might be able to find some persuasive
exceptions to the rule that no one should have a handgun. Also to be honest, in a world where so
many people of color are massacred by the police I seriously question whether private citizens
are the problem when it comes to handguns.
Implementation Issues
One issue with the resolution is that it only bans handguns (though it is now more clear
why), which means that users may find alternatives ways to get handguns (smelting?) or
alternative weapons that maybe dangerous and just as easily concealed. People could also by
legal rifles and modify them to be like pistols or simply buy a flamethrower and call it a day. The
point is that implementation seems fairly difficult for the aff to explain especially when there are
already millions of guns in the U.S. and thousands of people who will resist the aff at every turn
because some people in the U.S. (especially those in high places) really love guns. For negative
debaters who are interested in this sort of argument I would suggest you look into state
enforcement rates of federal control laws. Some countries have implemented buyback programs
and other incentives for citizens to return the handguns voluntarily but ultimately the aff should
be able to hold its head up high if it can prove that it reduces the amount of gun related deaths.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
25/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8>
Alternatively, affirmatives could run philosophic positions that do not rely on implementation,
although you will find little evidence that specifically applies to handguns exclusively.
Affirmative Positions
Implementation Based Affirmatives
Ultimately I have found the distinction between philosophic, kritikal and LARP positions to be
illusory. However, one useful distinction is between affs that address implementation and those
that do not. Those who plan to implement the resolution could cite many utilitarian advantages to
banning handguns. However, handguns likely involve structural harms so I would suggest
running rule utilitarian positions or a structural violence argument involving the number of
marginalized populations that are harmed by handguns specifically. For starters, kids are killed
by handguns a lot because they are small, inaccurate, and look fun to kids who mistake them for
toys4. Even when you generalize to adolescents, the presence of handguns increases the rate of
suicide and homicide among them5.
Though many negatives may argue that handguns are a great equalizer for marginalized
populations that may not be able to physically overpower their aggressor, the fact is that the
handgun is the weapon of choice for domestic abusers6. This, of course, does not describe every
confrontation and sometimes the negative might build a persuasive case for why handguns are
needed in particular situations. This is why the affirmative will need to be comparative in terms
4http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_st
atistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html5 Duke 05’-Naomi, Michael Resnick, Iris Borowsky Wagman, Adolescents firearm violence: Position
Paper of the Society for Adolescent MedicineOctober 2014, Vol 104, No. 10 | American Journal of Public
Health6 http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
26/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8;
of the cumulative harm handguns cause. For those of you who are going to Blake and plan on
defending utilitarianism I strongly suggest you prep out politics disads as those will be common
among neg LARPers who did not have time to cut unique disads on this topic. You should also
need to be very specific on the question of solvency because there have been many attempts to
ban handguns and you want to be specific on this question so that you can beat back most
counter plans.
Non-Implementation Based Affirmatives
The problem with the philosophical ground on this topic is that there are not many
philosophical articles that speak to the issue of banning handguns specifically; rather they talk
about the right to bear arms generally. Affs have a few options to remedy to this: they could a)
defend the interpretation that private gun ownership is generally bad (which is extra-t) or b)
make up or their own analytics about why handguns are specifically bad. Unless you find
specific evidence I would generally prefer latter over the former. However, I expect many cases
like this will have some mix between these two. Ultimately I think that a smart philosophical
position should argue why banning handguns specifically is required rather than banning guns
generally, to avoid unnecessary theory. Some deontic positions would likely make the pacifist
argument that we have the prima facie duty not to risk the lives others regardless of how others
might act (because that is circumstantial) as demonstrated in the debate between Kant and St.
Augustine7. Thus, affs could take the principled account of saying that handguns ought to be
banned as a category of violent response. It would be strongly advised for affirmatives to address
this issue of self-defense as this will be the crux of many principled objections to the aff in
addition to the generic claim to property rights. It might also be worth it, for those who are
7 http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/back-to-guns-kant-vs-saint-augustine/266855/
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
27/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8?
interested in writing kritiks, to look into the psychoanalytic reasons behind buying a handgun
and perhaps arguing that any potential use of a gun is embedded in problematic and violent
metaphors. As Zoja8 put it :
“Psychologically, owning a gun has become a naïve expression of macho masculinity -- a
show of sexuality and arrogant power. When a powerless young boy buys a gun and kills
defenseless kids, he has the momentary delusion that he has the omnipotent power of a
hero, even if he knows that he will be killed by the police, or will even kill himself.
Potentially you could argue that any alternative that attempts to defend gun ownership is
ultimately tied to this problematic pattern of thought, which you could expand on in the 1 AR.
Other tricky debaters could argue that there might be a legitimate reason to ban handguns if they
just prove they are dangerous and that there are better non-lethal alternatives that the negative
has to disprove.
Negative Positions
Implementation Based Negatives
Negatives have lots of util ground on this topic because the aff is trying to ban a
culturally valued object which gives negatives the opportunity to subvert the aff in a number of
ways. For starters, it seems that when politicians even hint at banning guns they actually end up
increasing the incentive for people to buy more guns because the people perceive a closing
window. Advances in weapon technology will likely make handguns harder to regulate (think
handguns that are harder to detect and easier to make), and there are progressively more
8 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pythia-peay/guns-love-them-or-hate-th_b_3193330.html
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
28/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8@
dangerous weapons in general - both of which could turn most affs given the window-closing
argument.
Politics disads are also an obvious choice because the NRA is a very powerful lobby and
we are about a year from the election which is basically the same thing as being a month from
the election in the United States. Counter-plans are another obvious choice because there might
be any number of ways to get people to solve gun violence other than banning handguns.
Negatives could also isolate disads to particular citizens being denied the right to
handguns that we may have not previously thought of, such as the marginalized groups that I
previously discussed. For example, a lot of affirmative debaters might assume that the gun users
are punishing are people who can rely on the protection of the police but that is not always the
case. The concealed nature of handguns is precisely what might make them a useful line of
defense when you are attacked in the streets.
Non-Implementation Based Negatives
Alternatively, negatives could make principled objection to taking away handguns from
anyone because they can generically defend the rights to property, to bear arms and to self-
defense often associated with handgun ownership. The other thing that is strategic about
positions like this (particularly deontic ones) is that it does not matter if people misuse guns in
the same way because the negative can claim they do not defend the consequences of the action
to avoid most disads. And unlike the affirmative, the negative does not have to be topical so a
generic libertarian criticism of a handgun ban would apply very well on this topic. Negatives
could also take libertarian positions and remind the aff that handguns might be an important line
of defense against government tyranny given the fact that it can easily be used by people with
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
29/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ ./01 2$34$)( 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 8A
weaker arms or who cannot afford rifles. Kritik debaters could also look into the racially
problematic history involved in gun control and take the genealogical route of criticizing the
resolutions. Others could run biopower kritiks criticizing the government’s attempt to disarm
populations as a method of control.
Good Luck!
Fred Ditzian
About Fred Ditzian
Fred Ditzian debated 3 years at Fort Lauderdale High School and had great success on
both the national and local circuit making it to elimination rounds at: Harvard, Blue Key,
Crestian, and Alta. Fred has been coaching LD since 2009 and is currently coaching Lake
Highland Preparatory School. He has recently graduated from the University of Central Florida
and is set to begin his Master’s Degree in Public Policy Analysis at Claremont Graduate
University in the fall.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
30/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
31/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
32/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
33/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
34/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
35/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
As the affirmative, your burden is to defend a ban on the usage of guns. It’s probably a
good idea as you are formulating your strategy to have explanations for why you think it is
reasonable to defend just a ban on the use of guns, a ban on the use/production/distribution of
guns, or some permutation. I will give a few ideas of affirmative cases that you can run.
The first affirmative would be one of the more common, or “stock” cases on the topic,
which is public wellbeing. Underneath a wellbeing affirmative would be contentions about
school shootings/other shootings, crime, teen suicide and murder, etc.
School shootings can have intense and large effects on students of the school, other
schools, and personnel. Springfield, Newton, Littleton. These are just a few of the places where
there have been school shootings. Despite a lot amount of youth homicides happening in a
school, the impacts of school shootings are large and wave out. Witnessing a shooting has
psychological effects, as well as physical effects. Kids might stop coming to school, have their
grades fall, have nightmares and induced sleeping problems, etc. There is a proven decline in
performance and how they interact with other individuals at school (Penn State).18
School staff also can be affected by development of psychological problems. Post the
Dawson shooting, many teachers had post-traumatic stress disorder, divorce, and burnout
(Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007).19
When teachers are having issues that translates to more
issues for students as well.
18 Penn State. "Effects of School Shootings." Applied Social Psychology ASP RSS . N.p., n.d. Web. 07
Dec. 2015. 19
Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., & Hays, M. (2007). The impact of school violence on school personnel:
Implications for psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(6), 652-659. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.6.652
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
36/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
37/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
38/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
39/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
40/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =9
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
Introduction
For many debaters, the January/February topic is one of the most important topics. There
are many tournaments on the local and national circuit on this topic. Many tournaments on this
topic are some of the last few qualifying tournaments for the TOC or state/district tournaments.
The January/February topic is also the TOC and NDCA topic, which means it is the topic to go
the extra yard. Other key national circuit tournaments on this topic are Harvard Westlake,
Berkley, Harvard, Sunvitational, and Emory. Harvard Westlake, Berkley and Emory tend to be
more policy-oriented. Nonetheless, you will find debaters at different levels with different styles
at all of these tournaments.
This topic is very pertinent given the current state of affairs. This year alone, there were
around 9,900 gun deaths and an average of 36 people killed each day by guns.27 The debate on
whether to ban guns has been discussed for decades, so there is a lot of literature. On this topic, I
think it’ll be important for debaters to recognize the different stories of individuals who would be
affected if there were a handgun ban. There are stories on both sides. How does the Newton
School Shooting shape our perception of a handgun ban? How does the tale of Sarah, a single
mother who used a gun in self-defense to protect her infant from an intruder, inform our
perception of a handgun ban? I recommend that debaters think about how the stories influence
the possibility of a gun ban. Overall, the January/February topic always is filled with different
27 Wing 15 [Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post], “Guns Kill An Average Of 36 People Every Day,
And The Nation Doesn't Even Blink,” The Huffington Post, Oct 02, 2015, GU//MM
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
41/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =:
positions and lots of good debates at many competitive tournaments. You will soon live, learn,
and breathe the topic, so enjoy and good luck!
Topic Background
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the historic case, DC v. Heller, that gun ownership
for lawful purposes is a right upheld in the Constitution under the Second Amendment. In spite
of this, there are multiple instances of mass shooting, suicides, and other uses of handguns in
unlawful manners. At the same time, there is intensive lobbying done by the National Rifle
Association and a pro-gun movement discussing the constitutionality of gun ownership and right
to self-defense. The debate revolving around handguns is about whether we should ban guns,
regulate them, or do nothing since they can be a deterrent.
I think the wording of this topic leads individuals to different interpretations of the topic.
Like most other topics, this is because of the definition of ‘ought.’ If you define ought to simply
imply a moral obligation, the debate becomes more philosophical. If you define ought to indicate
action, the debate becomes more focused on a policy of banning handguns. If you do choose to
interpret the resolution under a policymaking lens, I think you will have to consider if you want
the handgun ban policy to be done on the national or state level. I think you can also consider
how the handgun ban would be passed – via new legislation or an executive order. I think using
the rhetoric of “repeal the second amendment” is troublesome because it is extra-topical. The
resolution only discusses handguns, while the second amendment protects the right to bear arms
and have a well-regulated militia. Another potential topicality concern relating to policy
implementation is about limiting a ban to a particular region. I think this comes to the definition
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
42/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =8
of United States since some sources define “United States” as including the 50 states and DC.28
Also, I do not think it is strategic to specify a city or an area, as that would open you up to many
turns and solvency deficits about cross-border buying and selling.
Overall, you can choose whichever interpretation you seek fit, but be able to defend it
with different definitions.
Affirmative
The core affirmative ground is about the sheer number of lives lost because of the
existence of handguns. There are multiple ways to write affirmative cases regardless of the style
of debater you are that reflect this core.
In terms of affirmative cases, I see potential for affs to choose an area in which handguns
have escalated fatal injuries/led to increased death rates. These can be contentions on a more
traditional AC or could be examples of arguments that fall under the advantage area of how bans
save lives. Here are a few:
Gun Violence and Crime: This is the most stock argument – more guns equal more crime.
There are countless studies that prove that the presence of handguns increases homicide rates.
There is also literature about accidental shootings that occur when handguns are present (for
example: by youth or children who are curious). You could also frame offense about homicide
rates under a critical lens if you focus on communities in which there are more gun violence
victims. For example, in 2013, more than 51% of homicide victims were black and guns killed
28 Dictionary.com, “United States”
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
43/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =<
75% of them.29
You could make a gun violence aff more critical by focusing on these disparities
in terms of whose lives are being lost.
Suicides: This advantage area states that handguns increase suicide rates because people
who are contemplating suicide will be more likely to follow through if a gun is available. A
study found that after purchase of handguns, the suicide rate increased by 57%. 30 This is mainly
because the presence of handguns increases the risk that they can be used impulsively. An aff
like this can also focus on specific groups likely to commit suicides like adolescents.
Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence: Another interesting position is about domestic
violence or intimate partner violence. Guns are correlated with an 8-fold increase in homicide
rates of an intimate partner, and a 20-fold increase in homicide rates when domestic violence
exists.31
For the same reasons as suicides, the reason behind these statistics is just that guns are
convenient, accessible, and can thus be used impulsively. An aff focusing on this area could even
have a more critical framing discussing oppression faced by those involved in domestic violence
or intimate partner violence.
For all of these examples, the solvency would need to be about why banning guns would
decrease violence, crime, and suicide rates. I would recommend finding solvency specific to
examples where gun bans have worked and descriptions of why they would be effective (they
would take away something that someone would impulsively use).
29 German Lopez 15 [University of Cincinnati; Writer for Vox], “Mass shootings are a fraction of gun
deaths. Why don't we pay more attention to the rest?” Vox, December 3, 2015, GU//MM30
Wintemute et al 99: Garen J. Wintemute [MD, MPH], Carrie A Parham [MS], James Jay Beaumont
[PhD], Mona Wright [MPH] and Christiana Drake [PhD]; all of them [work at the Massachusetts Medical
Society], "Mortality Among Recent Purchasers of Handguns," The New England Journal of Medicine,
Volume 341, Number 21, November 19, 1999, GU//MM31
JHSPH: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Center for Gun Policy and Research,
"Intimate Partner Violence and Firearms," GU//MM
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
44/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ==
Another potential advantage area is in relation to gun trafficking and potentially
terrorism. The argument would just be that the US supplies guns to a lot of cartels or terror
organizations since it is very easy to obtain guns. A handgun ban would decrease the amount of
guns that could be sold, thus decreasing the potential for violence through trafficking hubs or
terror organizations.
Another potential aff could focus on the idea of police and state protection. The argument
is that gun ownership has been increasing among citizens and thus, police have less control and
power. The aff would have to be set up to answer criticisms of the state and argue that the state
and police are the best forms of protection, and guns take away control from that protection.
In terms of more critical affs, there are definitely many different options. I think one
potential critical aff with lots of topic literature focuses on the idea of guns as promoting white
masculinity. The argument is just that guns represent an outlet for majority groups to oppress
others, and therefore they ought to be banned. This can be backed up by the reality of gun
owners who use guns simply to perpetuate dominance.
There are plenty of aff options so don’t let these ideas be the extent of your research.
Especially on a topic with so many tournaments, keep researching and writing unique affs!
Negative
Since this topic has been debated for decades, there is a lot of literature on both the aff
and the neg. On the neg, there are many different positions that can be run regardless of your
debate style. As always, the best neg strategies are more reactive and responsive to the aff.
Especially by later tournaments, try to have some generic positions as well as very specific
positions that respond to different affs.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
45/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =>
Negative Cases
The most common cases I see are a constitutionality NC and a self-defense/right to own a
gun NC. I think the best way to set up a constitutionality NC would be by having framing
arguments about why we should look to Supreme Court decisions. Then, the offense would be
court cases (like DC v. Heller), where the Supreme Court supported the right to own a gun under
the Second Amendment. A self-defense/right to own a gun NC would just focus on why guns are
important to protect people and why ownership is a right. This could be read with a property-
rights type of framework. This type of NC could go hand in hand with a deterrence argument
about how if everyone is armed, there will be less crime.
Policy Arguments
There are many potential counterplans I see on this topic. For example, you could argue
for regulation, increased background checks, and permits to purchase. You can argue for specific
cases where stricter gun control has worked and then read any reason why gun ownership is
good. I think these counterplans will be very common – especially if they have killer solvency
evidence specific to different advantage areas (crime rates, suicide rates, homicide rates etc.).
The best disadvantages on this topic are probably a politics DA, safety DA, and an illegal
markets DA. Gun control is very controversial in congress. You can easily find links as to why a
handgun ban (if the aff is implementable) would be politically detrimental, especially given the
power of the NRA. A safety DA would just relate to the idea of self-defense, and would be
especially good against affs arguing that police need more power. The argument would be that
particular vulnerable groups need guns to protect themselves in a world where they are targeted
and aren’t protected by the state. Finally, an illegal markets DA would argue that the criminals
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
46/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =;
are the problem, not guns. If we were to ban handguns, the desire to attain weapons would not
disappear, and there would be an increase in the illegal gun market, leading to unregulated
activity, and potentially worse forms of violence.
Whichever route you choose to go as a negative, there is plenty of literature and offense!
Overall Thoughts
Since this topic is so extensive and important in the eyes of many debaters, I encourage
you to continue to do research and be creative. For those of you going to tournaments before
Winter Break like Blake, stick to having generic negative positions that can apply to different
affs. On this topic in particular, there are many studies on both sides, so I recommend finding the
best evidence and doing some weighing and evidence comparison. Keep doing research and
write positions that are informed by the events that are happening now. Especially since there
have been so many shootings in the US, there is plenty of topic literature – so you should find the
best evidence possible. This also means that you should keep up with the news, since after every
shooting that garners national attention, there is more written about this topic. Good luck and
prepare to live this topic!
Good Luck!
Mitali
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
47/394
!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ E$3)*$ E)3C6/ 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =?
About Mitali Mathur
Mitali competed in LD for 4 years at Greenhill School with success on the local, state,
and national level. She qualified to the Texas Forensics Association debate tournament three
times, placing third her junior and senior year. Over her debate career, she cleared at national
tournaments including St. Marks, Grapevine, Meadows, Glenbrooks, Isidore Newman, and
Emory. She also qualified to the TOC her junior and senior year. Mitali was honored to be a
member of the USA Debate Team, through which she placed second in the Harvard Westlake
Tournament and Holy Cross Tournament, won the Blake Tournament, and the team placed 10th
in the world at the World Schools Debating Championship held in Singapore. She is excited to
be attending the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University starting this fall.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
48/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =@
'*30/()3$K0 '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
Under the Gun: Policy and Critical approaches to the January-February HS LD
Resolution
Foreword
This topic analysis is meant to be read as a supplement to normative approaches to the
resolution. Much of the content below assesses alternative argumentation styles and strategies as
responses to stock positions on the topic, and many of the options presented below are
contextualized to address normative approaches. I would encourage debates to really explore the
core of the topic before starting on recommendations in this paper; it will make it an easier read
and also bolster your knowledge base. This paper presents an analysis of how defending a
handgun ban shapes the direction and focus of preparation. This, in turn, informs how to research
and construct alternative arguments like kritiks or modeling in ways that strategically engage
affirmatives while upholding the negative’s burden. Specifically, this paper places a large
emphasis on how implementation of a ban affects the solvency and link debates, as well as how
the justifications for banning or not banning handguns can be used to generate offense.
Strategic Implications of the Resolution
What makes this topic most interesting in applying critical arguments is that the resolution
itself is for all intents-and-purposes a policy, if not a specific plan of action. Even if the
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
49/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. =A
affirmative is defending the resolution as an entirety instead of parametracizing down to specific
plan of handguns, the affirmative is still intrinsically forced to defend implementation and law.
This opens the door for more contemporary critical and policy approaches found on the high
school cross-examination circuit. Because the affirmative is forced to defend an instance of
change rather than a larger institutional concept the negative may be justified in forcing the
affirmative to defend the specifics of how the plan is formed to law, then enforced as well as the
subsequent social and legal responses – else the negative would have little to advocate for
beyond trite moral platitudes rooted in practically ancient gun culture. For those competition
pools already geared for progressive circuit LD, the fact that the affirmative is now defending a
specific course of action like banning handguns has huge implications for how links and
alternatives are framed for the negative and thus what literature it draws from. Rather than
critically indicting broad ethical and legal concepts (like jury nullification) from an academic
standpoint, the negative will find themselves more engaged in how law making intersects with
social justice.
Meanwhile, students from all spectrums of debate approaches will find themselves
preoccupied with the depth of the debate. With the problem area already isolated and the solution
already proposed, solvency debate will likely tire quickly while the justifications for actions as
well as the internal-link debate will come under harsher scrutiny. An inevitable result then, is
that the affirmative will be at increased risk of (As my good friend Andy Charrier puts it) “Death
by a thousand cuts” in that each underpinning of the 1AC will have to hold intact as there are
only so many advantage scenarios banning an inanimate object can generate. The negatives will
quickly construct 1NC blocks covering each offensive avenue of the affirmative, who will thus
have to resort to “tricky” internal link scenarios and intricate specialized 1AR blocks. This will
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
50/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >9
force, in turn, the 1NC to be more strategic by diversification in their 1NCs. The predictions are
generally true based on previous hyper-specific LD resolutions (take for instance minimum
wage), as well as experiences will certain policy resolutions in their wording that present
possible plans or plan areas. One can also look at topicality for proof; handguns at a substantial
level can only be a few “Areas”, while “Banned” has a very clear bright line for what “Actions”
are available. This is a particularly small avenue for the affirmative, who cannot surprise the
negative with alternating methodology or subjects. Without the ability to expand, teams on each
side will dig deeper in the literature base.
With the breadth of the debate limited while debaters attempt to debate deeper, there are a
few important things to remember. First, there will be heavy interaction between on and off case
flows. The negative will need to cut off case offense to protect intrinsic disadvantages and
critiques as the affirmative attempt to straight turn most negative positions. This is likely as there
will be very little unexpected offense after even a short duration on this topic. Second, debaters
will need to place an emphasis on constructing positions strategically – This entails writing 1ACs
and 1NCs to leave the debater with multiple out and as much offense is possibly. The 1AR will
control the strategic direction of the debate based on how well each negative response has been
prepped. This means that the negative will have to be able to hide impacts and links and cross-
apply them in the 2NR to tell a coherent ballot story while the affirmative will focus on
accumulating as much offense as possible to sit on in the 2AR. This is also likely given that the
affirmative will not have any substantial new 1AR responses as most 1NC positions will be
intrinsic to any combination of defending handguns, criticizing epistemology/ontology, or doing
impact work. Simply, the negative cannot get away with the spaghetti-on-the-wall approach
common in 1NCs while affirmative will have a tougher time layering up in the 1AR.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
51/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >:
Of course there are always ways of sneaking around the in instances of predictable and
limited ground. That is simply the nature of LD’s timeframes as resolution lengths. This paper
will attempt to provide insight into how to successfully find, construct, run, and win on non-
traditional arguments and strategies in the context of the topic. Emphasis will be placed on
positions that strategically control the direction of the debate and interact with other flows, on
positions that avoid easily-stalemated contemporary arguments, and on positions that provide the
most offense with little risk of counter. These criteria will take insight from experiences with
policy-making debate as well as contemporary critical approaches to said policy-making debate.
Division of Ground and Burdens
As noted, the orientation to depth from this topic is a substantial framing issue in preparation.
Affirmative
Because the affirmative has only one mechanism (Banning) and only a few subjects
(Handguns), 1AC’s will end up preoccupied with isolating advantage areas and constructing
them to avoid stock negative offense.
This means the affirmative must begin preparation by solidifying solvency. Because all
negatives know what policy they must answer, the negative will likely quickly accumulate most
literature on how banding handguns is implemented and enforced. This means that if the
affirmative is relying on the actual ban itself to work to reduce violence or some other end, they
must be able to quickly and efficiently deal with all solvency presses preemptively or in the
1AR. The affirmative of course, must respond to the justification that handguns are useful for
self-defense and stopping crime. These stock arguments deserve little other attention that a harsh
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
52/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >8
criticism of a false reality perpetrated by debunked and disproven studies. In fact, it is relatively
easy for the affirmative to show how private ownership of handguns increases violence, which
would be a link turn.
Simultaneously, working to protect your advantage offense will come through specificity
in the 1AC. Since negative debaters will have so little real ground on solvency, they will likely
hone in on the small number of advantages that banning handguns can generate. Affirmatives at
best have one mechanism to prevent specific instances of social violence as well as possible
security threats. While specific affirmatives are discussed later, the implication is that the
affirmative will need to be very choosey with the strengths and weaknesses of certain internal
link scenarios and their 1AR defenses. In terms of offense, the negative will likely go with stock
arguments that range from shifts in how violence is undertaken as well as legal and political
consequences. This is the case because most consequences of banning weapons, even handguns,
are well documented, and tend to not extend much further than the subject itself. Because those
arguments sound awfully familiar to 1AC advantage areas, it will be imperative that the
affirmative build in good evidence that functions as preempts to those arguments. The
affirmative will be put at a higher burden to prove the 1AC right rather than to prove the 1NC
wrong, meaning that intrinsic offense from the affirmative is especially important. Simply put,
the affirmative will have to contend with a set and predictable number arguments that directly
interact with case.
Negative
The negative will likely work to produce solid case answer specific to each affirmative
their and advantages while racing to get ahead in off case positions in an attempt to outmaneuver
the affirmative.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
53/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ><
Making sure you address or cut off case offense will be imperative to winning the debate.
This starts with the solvency debate. While the argument ‘You can’t really expect handguns to
just disappear’ will quickly tire, smart negative debaters will employ trickier approaches to case.
Alternative/root cause arguments will be exceptionally useful, proving that the affirmative ban
on handguns is inconsequential in the greater scheme of gun and social violence – whether it be
that simply other weapons are available or that an affirmative doesn’t address causes of said
violence. Similarly, the negative should focus on legal and social pushback to the policy.
Rollbacks as a result of politics disadvantages or courts turns might well render the affirmative
pointless even if it does fiat implementation. Likewise, how individuals will react to the policy is
important in its future. Voters may elect officials who defeat the purpose of the affirmative later,
or may mobilize at a social level in a way antithetical to the affirmative’s intentions to reduce
violence. Forcing the affirmative to specific and defend the legal principle and mechanism in
which they ban handguns will simultaneously give insight into how effective the policy is.
To address the advantage areas, internal link and impact arguments will be imperative.
Negatives who attempt impact mitigation will likely be successful. If a negative can prove that
weapons would still circulate as a result of markets or because of prevention of post ex-facto
seizure of goods, then the affirmatives loses much of its justification. Similarly, arguing at the
internal link level that banning handguns only shifts or masks violence is a persuasive reason
why an affirmative is at best non-impactful and at worst net-bed. Many affirmatives might try to
abstract the debate and argue that banning handguns furthers some social ideology. At this point
the negative might do well to question the efficacy of that ideology itself as well as why banning
guns spills over to attitude change. Impact turns do not seem like a productive approach, as it
would be hard, if not unethical, to argue for murder or racism, etc. Uniqueness on advantages,
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
54/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >=
however, do fall prey to dispute. Being able to establish causality with the link and a relationship
with the internal link is often suspect depending on the focus of gun-violence impact studies. The
negative might have good opportunities to explain how a current trend cannot be overcome by
the single instance of the affirmative. While off-case offense will be discussed later, it is
important to note that there will be some external offense in the forms of epistemology kritiks
and politics disadvantages, for instance. In this case it will be important for the negative to
identify the role of their off-case arguments in how they answer case, for example by examining
how a disadvantage’s impact functions in the debate and whether it means you need more or less
on case. Because of the simplicity of the resolution, theory and T may decrease in use. However,
stock T and Theory arguments should not be overlooked as one even on this topic can expect
some bold and extraneous affirmatives. The negative should balance the desire to get creative
(read as: drum up weird impacts) with the need to address case given the limited nature of the
negative literature base. Negatives must be willing to adopt old defensive arguments such as alt-
cause/uniqueness overwhelm the link or internal link take-outs to win. This will assist in
minimizing affirmative offense and using external offense to outweigh the affirmative.
Affirmative Arguments
Kritikal Affirmatives
The handgun is an important symbol in many respects. In contemporary media it
represents a tool of social and individual violence. In political respects, it represents criminal
enterprise and revolutionary politics. In this sense, banning handguns can be advocated as means
to deconstruct social or political ideologies for various reasons.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
55/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >>
When it’s said that the handgun is a symbol, it means that it is a widely recognized
artifact that is studied and examined in the context to its user and their intentions. For instance,
there is a fairly persuasive argument that the handgun and its violent use is a symbol of white
supremacy. Media (this year and before) has documented well how angry white males use
handguns to kill individuals who reside at an intersection that shooter doesn’t like – take planned
parenthood or mosque shootings. In this sense, banning handguns could be a move to take away,
literally and symbolically, the ability to enforce racial violence.
In a similar sense, banning handguns could also be a deconstruction of gun culture. A
good chunk of modern literature on the subject talks about how the handgun has been a tool in
distorting and militarizing gun culture through promises of securitization. By justifying gun
culture as unhealthy individually and politically, you can prove the banning handguns would
damage the movement and take away its very justification. Along the lines of securitization, their
might be reward for those who equate the promise of protection from the gun as securitization
(even capitalism), and then impact why that securitization is bad – think Zizek. Banning the
handgun could be a useful deconstruction of said securitization as the handgun could be proven
as a key symbol of protectionism.
Among the more intricate approaches to deconstructing a symbol could come from
framing the affirmative around the “Pristine Wilderness Myth.” Anti-colonialists have put an
emphasis on romanticizing nature along with Westward expansion based on unlimited resources
as sexist, racist, and destructive. It would not to be too far of a logical leap to say that the
handgun was and is a symbol of this frontier mindset. Colt named one of their most famous six-
shooters “The Peacemaker,” which caps off a widespread representation of cowboy violence
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
56/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >;
during manifest destiny undertaken via handgun. Perhaps then banning handguns is equivalent to
destroying the pistol as an image of colonialist ideology.
Promoting a constructive epistemological framework on the affirmative can be likewise
strategic for the affirmative. This begins with including narratives of real people affected by gun
violence as well use of an active voice in telling the story of the affirmative. A large problem
with gun violence research is that it abstracts away from the experiences of the victims while
focusing on statistics and policy. This dehumanizes those affected by shootings across the
country. Failing to include the voice of the individuals, family and friends involved in handgun
violence is crucial in justifying the affirmative as ethically correct policy as accounted for by real
living people and not just in calculating decision forums that might otherwise forget about the
person and focus on the political value. Thousands of Americans are affected daily by gun
violence. Hearing these stories and voices is key to promoting emotional awareness by debaters
and judges who might otherwise carelessly disregard those folks as simple statistics.
The affirmative could easily get away with critical turns placed on certain 1NC
arguments. For instance, studies done by pro-handgun groups are prevalent and likely to be ran
by the negative. Indicts to epistemology or agency are straight forward reasons to reject the
evidence if not prefer the affirmatives. Likewise, arguing a defensive need for handguns gives
the affirmative grounds to critique those notions of the grounds of being patriarchal-romantic if
not justifications for securitization. Here you can get strategic, and save some critical arguments
for the 1AR or use them as preempts in the 1AC.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
57/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >?
Policy Affirmatives
While arguably the resolution itself is a plan text, there are still a few ways to get creative
with it. It is important to remember that there are various different types of handguns, which
gives the option to make the affirmative even more specific. The strategic advantage here is
given that you don’t have to defend ALL of handgun banning and those avoid many negative
links.
The affirmative, for example, could ban all automatic handguns. Still allowed through
taxes, licenses, and loopholes that vary from state to state as well as the federal level, automatic
handguns are highly valued by criminal and trafficking industry (two possible advantage areas).
Banning just these handguns solves very particular problems while avoiding negative offense by
specifying down, which is a double win. The same specification could be done for pistols that
use different ammunition. Without turning this paper into one about different handguns, it could
be argued that certain rounds like the 5.7mm FN are highly preferred by criminal organizations
and militias. Banding handguns by caliber would remove more dangerous weapons from grasp.
Finally, handguns could be banned by type or capacity. Many countries for instance allow
handguns, but only ones that have magazines of 10 rounds or less. Likewise, some countries
mandate certain barrel lengths while banning those used for military use.
While being topical still enforces a ban, the affirmative here still has tricks at its disposal.
By specifying an agent, affirmative can strategically avoid negative offense. For instance, the
affirmative could have Congress pass a constitutional amendment or piece of legislation. Here,
you have almost guaranteed solvency, especially in the instance of the former example. On the
other hand, the affirmative is open for some of the juiciest politics disadvantage links LD has
ever seen. At the point, why not use the Supreme Court to overturn McDonald v. City of Chicago
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
58/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >@
(the case that prompted a ruling from the Supreme Court that handgun bans are
unconstitutional)? This overturn would function as an incentive for spillover legislation banning
handguns. The upside here is that you void those nasty politics disadvantages as well as many
legislative rollback questions. However, be ready to defend extra and effects topicality as the act
of overturning the case is likely not a ban in and of itself. But that is a debate to be had.
Advantage areas can also go beyond stock areas. Affirmatives can strategically control
the discourse and direction of the debate by selecting their justifications for action. For instance,
one could argue that banning handguns would significantly disrupt arms trafficking, which
would solve underground market arguments while uniquely justifying why trafficking is bad.
Similarly, the affirmative could argue that banning handguns cripples gun industry, which would
thus lose its grip on politics as well as media again solving alternative cause arguments. Finally,
the affirmative could argue that banning handguns takes away money and armaments from
militias, which surely could be justified as bad given that many extremists and terrorists who
conduct shooting rise from their ranks. These and other modelling arguments help you secure the
solvency debate, and also contain impacts that don’t generically fall along shooting impacts.
Negative Arguments
Kritiks
The biggest place for the negative to draw a link to criticism is based on the methodology
ingrained in the affirmative. Specifically, criticism of abstraction and structural violence will be
incredibly useful on this topic. Any affirmative at heart will argue that the absence of handguns
will stop violence at the social level as we no longer have the tools for it. The problem is that this
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
59/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. >A
approach fails to address the cause of violence, which is akin to treating the symptom and not the
wound. While this might seem like a simple solvency argument (which it can function as), it also
is the basis for criticism. It could be successfully argued that the affirmatives’ mentality of a
simple, quick fix solution papers over the greatest problems that cause violence (one could argue
poverty, racism, etc.). This promotes a mentality geared towards shallow policymaking, which
has two implications: A, it allows gun violence to continue to escalate as our stopping point is
always gun control but the driving force is much deeper and B, it would thus justify that
subsequent violence under the guise of being unable to solve the issue. Pertinent authors to note
here include Zizek, although specific links to gun control as well as your root because authors
are up to you to find. The alternative might be a competitive policy option; something that
addresses that root cause. Likewise, the alternative could be a call for a shift in our epistemology
in policy making to reject simplistic-thinking approaches. Lacan is also a good author in the
context of the utopia idea; Lacan’s literature is rife with criticism of why utopian, single step
thinking is problematic in that it drives imperial desire and managerialism. In other words, Lacan
might argue that banning handguns is bad simply in the sense that our vision of a post-plan
utopia is unrealistic and promotes bad policymaking.
Another place of criticism on banning handguns comes from how the affirmative justifies
it. For instance, there is a widely purported stream of thought that places the mentally ill as
violent killers, thus we have to ban handguns so shootings won’t happen anymore. Much actual
academic and medical research has placed stigmatization and isolation as a reason why the
mentally ill become violent, not because they “Just Are.” The implication is that many authors in
the literature base have explicitly named gun control as a response to acts of violence by the
mentally ill not only as flawed, but also justifying stigmatization and isolation. In this, there is
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
60/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;9
good criticism of the affirmative’s approach to solving gun violence in the context of mental
illness. Likewise, an affirmative can get in trouble for their representations of who commits
violence. Focusing on banning handguns to stop terror attacks falls prey to a contemporary
criticism in how we view terror. From the simple concept of terror as a propaganda tool to the
myth that refugees will by guns to kills people, banning guns based on terror fears may play into
the xenophobia and racism in current counter-terror policies. Some affirmatives may try to claim
offense by stopping drug trafficking or “the black market.” This again falls into criticism of
reductionism. Not only does banning handguns likewise not treat the root of, say, cartel violence,
representations of criminal enterprise often fall along racist and imperialist lines, offering more
links to representations and justifications kritiks.
Good links are also likely available in the worlds of securitization and bio-politics
literature. In terms of securitization, the affirmative is likely guilty of promoting the sanctimony
of security by promises of freedom from violence. Zizek is a good author here, given that much
of his works revolves around how promoting security in policy is a justification for colonialism
and neoliberalism. It is argued that this is emblematic of ideological hegemony, as in one groups
safety justifies any policy that keeps them safe, which in turn promotes imperial interventions to
accomplish that end. At the Foucauldian end of things is the concept that promoting the physical
being is a tool to regulate the body by the State, and incentive an abrogation of the political
being. One could easily suggest the affirmative embodies a fear of physical violence from
handguns, something the Biopolitical State would use to its advantage by banning guns. Thus the
state is in a better position to choose who lives or dies, especially given that a post-plan world
entails disarmament and faith in the state due to their increased monopoly on violence. This
enters into the world of justifying handguns as good; given they provide the ability to protect the
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
61/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;:
individual as a sovereign being. Agamben is a great place to start in reading up on how policy is
used to relegate people to bare life without political identity. Along the lines of discussion of
state power, a kritik of “The Spectacle” might become useful. The Spectacle could be construed
as the overarching media narrative associated with handgun violence. Authors like Kasnabish
and Newman-Storen explain how these dramatic displays of the struggle of life-and-death and
subsequent political response play into the power of the state as they are well controlled
orchestrations that categorize power held by majority groups, who likewise use their power and
persuasion to convince individuals to let go of their political being in favor of safety.
Taking a hint from the ingrained libertarianism of anti-biopolitics, an anarchy kritik also
serves a useful role in discussion of firearms. Prominent anarchist authors like De Jasay justify
why the individual ought not to be subject to a regulation of property and rights by the state, and
why the individual ought to be able to own any property and exclude others from it (within
reasonable conduct). Here, a more philosophical approach can be taken to justify handgun
ownership. The problem is not about consequences of gun ownership, but rather why the state
ought not exist to regulate that in the first place. In this sense, the body of the kritik is an
offensive reason that state regulation of ownership and a monopoly on violence is bad (usually a
critique of utilitarianism or social goods). As long as you prove that the state theoretically ought
not exist or regulate handgun ownership, you’ve won an important step in justifying why
unlimited liberty through anarchism is good. This depends much on the literature and its
specificity to handguns, but it is nevertheless conceptually sound. De Jasay is again a terrific
author to look into when indicting the control of the state and justify an anarchy alternative.
Much of his criticism of the state falls along how the state could never have an enforcer or check,
something that is certainly true when an individual is excluded from property like a handgun.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
62/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;8
Returning to the far-left, there are also revolutionary politics antithetical to a handgun
ban. A criticism of Civil Society, specifically one that indicted the mindset of an organized
regulation of violence could also be useful. The decision to ban handguns arguably rests on the
assumption that all parties have an equal stake in crafting that policy and enjoying its benefits.
Because this is often exclusive of minority voices, it is still a predominantly white norm to
assume that is the end-all be all solution. In reality, failure to hear those voices means we lack
crucial information to make the banning approach to violence inclusive of strategies that address
violence against minority communities. Furthermore, the idealization that society could operate
peacefully without the threat of handguns could be criticized for being a society that is
nevertheless not meant to include minorities, which would in turn promote social violence.
Especially if the affirmative frames the issue from the representationally problematic standpoint
of “reducing gang or poverty induced violence.” This rhetoric seems implicitly anti-black and
classist, making the justification of banning handguns tantamount to protecting white privilege.
Disadvantages
Banning handguns opens up the perfect opportunity for politics DAs. In an instance were
the affirmative’s mechanism is congress, partisanship links are ample. Not only is the gun
control debate a contentious issue enough (which empirically proves the link), banning handguns
would intuitively set off republican congressmen. The link would likely be predicated on
republicans blocking another policy as revenge against the handguns legislation, which would be
perceived as a pro-left issue. From here, your job is easy. Many policies, especially agency
funding bills, are currently and will be on the docket for months to come – likely vulnerable to
outside squabbling. Simply add uniqueness that says that legislation is passing now, and the
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
63/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;<
impact if it doesn’t, and you’re set. If the affirmative names the Supreme Court as its actor, the
negative should set its sights on a court capital disadvantage. Here, your link would be based off
of the banning of handguns as institutionally delegitimizing to the Supreme Court. Thus, if that
capital and respect is lost, it would mean that lower courts would likely not be willing to uphold
future rulings either based on political gaming or legal legitimacy. From here, you can add an
agent counterplan based on the affirmative’s agent to avoid the link on the politics DA.
Also useful would be a constitutional crisis disadvantage. Because the constitution was
based on and is ruled to uphold the principle that individuals may bear any weapon, reversing
that decision, even legally could be argued to delegitimize the law. After all, removing a core
right from our Magna Carta might give off the perception that the constitution is flimsy and that
any right is fair game. From there, the impact chain might suggest that as the rule of law slips,
we would be open to social crisis as well as attack.
Of particular interest is the concept of a citizen backlash disadvantage. There is actually
a decent amount of literature that suggests ultra-right groups might militarize and ‘rebel’ if
banning firearms ever happened, something a handgun ban would likely trigger. The firearms
rights organization network is incredibly strong, and extremist groups in the United States have
long held that increases steps of federal power like this are ground for revolution based on
ideological investment in the word of the constitution as supreme. Whether it is a perception of
impending fascism or simply anger over government control, there is good chance of massive
backlash. Surprisingly, this concept is not unheard of, with policy teams arguing similar
disadvantages on the immigration topic. This could either turn case in the form of increased
violence, or even further in the form of open conflict.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
64/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;=
Also possible are economics disadvantages. Rather than arguing that a collapse in
handguns sales would collapse the gun industry and so on, the negative would focus on
consumer confidence. Good literature exists that suggests that the market will become volatile
when the government passes a policy that is heavily partisan and would spook many portions of
the populace. Even speculation that the government is increasing power based on banning
handguns might be enough to send investors in the firearms market as well as elsewhere to
immediately pull investments. This would hurt the economy directly, as well as incentivize
citizens to sit on their money, compounding the issue.
Counterplans
Strangely enough, this topic is incredibly poor for counterplan. There is a strong case for
agent counterplans based on politics disadvantages, as the ability to solve the affirmative and
avoid the link is a fairly red-light/green-light issue. The negative could take the same strategy
recommended to the affirmative, which would be to exclude certain handguns for the ban. A
counterplan that banned certain types of calibers as well as rates-of-fire might be conceptually
sound, but lack any real functional competition, given that it would probably still link to most
intrinsic disadvantages. Without a net-benefit, there would be no reason to negate. At the point,
any counterplan that didn’t solve the affirmative would likely be an alternative to a criticism,
which has already been discussed. This concept is important in shaping the negative strategy;
whether it’s impact defense, or turning/outweighing the affirmative, you will need to find an
alternative way to resolve affirmative offense.
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
65/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;>
Theory and T.
As a stand-alone position, Topicality will likely take a watchman role. No word is
particularly hard to meet; “United States,” “Private Ownership.” “Handguns,” and “Banned” are
all straightforward. The only place T might be useful is for banned (In case anyone only restricts
handgun ownership) and private ownership (In case anyone tries to ban manufacturing or police
use).
Theory seems a bit more apt. For instance, Agent Specification (ASPEC) would play a
useful role in a politics and agent CP strategy – It would force them to certain agent to secure the
link or else risk clear abuse on the shell. ASPEC generally calls for affirmative to specific an
agent or branch out of the 1AC, under the justifications of getting good ground in the form of
links and turns, as well as preventing moving targets. Test Case is also useful, in that it calls for
the affirmative to specify a case to be ruled on if it is a courts affirmative. Failure to provide such
a case prevents real-life legal research and discussion of the case merits, both of which are key to
drawing politics link as well as throwing in solvency defense (the specifics of a ruling are usually
key to implementation). Over Specification (OSPEC) also has a role to play. With an
interpretation that forces the affirmative to defend all instances of banning handguns (not just
certain types), the negative avoids tricky no-links and delimited case preparation.
Good Luck!
Bailey
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
66/394
'*3F '/G6H0(3)3$"( -+ I)$*0+ J6(G 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. ;;
About Bailey Rung
Bailey is a 2014 graduate of Blaine HS in Minneapolis, MN. Bailey spent his 4-year
career competing in a variety of events, but his true passion lies in Congressional Debate because
of its dynamic nature and challenging format. Some of his highlights include competing in and
presiding semis at ToC and NSDA, as well as finals at Minneapple, Dowling, Blake, and
Harvard. Additionally, Bailey has earned multiple leadership bowl awards and round robin
placements. As a coach, Bailey has helped bring students to MSHSL States, ToC, and Nationals,
and his lab students in Congressional Debate at CBI have made it to outrounds at Glenbrooks,
Blake, Apple Valley, Harvard, Cal, and Nationals & ToC. Bailey is an assistant debate coach at
Ridge High School, and is looking forward to a great year ahead. Bailey is currently a
sophomore at Western Kentucky University, and competes actively in NFA-LD Debate and IEs.
At the 2015 PKD Nationals, Bailey took 3rd in LD Debate, and was an Octofinalist at 2015 NFA
Nationals. Bailey is excited to return to CBI this summer, and hopes to use his own competitive
experiences to make an impact on the lives of attending students. He is currently an assistant
coach for Ridge High School (NJ).
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
67/394
r meworks
Cham pion Briefs
January/February 2016
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
68/394
!"#$%&'% )*+ ,-% .))#+/0,#"% 10&20+345%6+20+3 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. :;
5+0/%3?#? 63 ./3 @%>>%+
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
Affirmative Frameworks:
1. Equality
The value is a just state. Find evidence that says that humans are equal since they all have the
same inherent moral worth. You should also cut cards about how all people should have a voice
in democracy and must be able to access their political rights. Thus the standard is promoting
equality. It would be helpful to find some cards that say that minority groups need to be included
in the system.
A. Strategy
This is stock case that can be highly strategic for many rounds due to specific nuances in the
framework arguments and the contention level arguments. This framework would be run in
conjunction with arguments about minority deaths due to hate crimes or victims dying from an
abuser in a case of domestic violence. This is strategic because it is not a generic “people are
dying” case but rather argues that guns need to be banned due to the intentional motives to
exclude groups.
B. Ideas to Answer
There are many ways to approach an equality framework. First, you should pin your opponent
down to a specific type of equality their framework justifies. Is it political inclusion? Social
equality? Then utilize your own negative framework to generate answers as to how your specific
-
8/19/2019 Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief
69/394
!"#$%&'% )*+ ,-% .))#+/0,#"% 10&20+345%6+20+3 789:
!"#$%&'( *+&,-. :A
framework is a mechanism for achieving equality while making preclusive arguments as well.
Framework comparison is always important when going up against this type of a case.
2.
Checks
The value morality is prescribed by the word ought in the resolution. People enter into a contract
with the state where they agree to follow the law in order to receive protection in return. You
should look into philosophers like John Locke to find a card about the social contract. As citizens
of the United States, people implicitly agree to give up some of their personal rights in order for
the state to maintain safety. Evidence to illustrate this fact would also be helpful. Thus, the
standard is upholding the social contract.
A. Strategy
This framework would be useful to run because this topic gives way to a unique relationship
between the government and the people. The people need to uphold their side of the contract by
being willing to consent to laws that may restrict them and the government needs to check its
citizens in order to keep order in the society and protect people from gun violence. The
government has an obligation to create new laws to protect the people due to an increase in
murders/shooting from handguns. Also, in a democracy the government needs to respond to its
people and many want this law in order to feel safe in society.
B. Ideas to answer
Break out those social contract blocks! Attack the first layer by arguing that the social contract is
illegitimate/doesn’t exist. Make specific answers to the relationship of the state and the people in
this context. Does the government have the right