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


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.


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,


4/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 7

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,

!8% 9:;+"*


5/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. R

J%,;,+"*=% H.,+ ,+"/+ L;+8 ="A;+"$;,HZ"++%HA+, "+ '+8%/ +"/G%+,


6/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 6

!8% ,%='*< "H%*


7/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. O

9='*'H;= )'$$"A,% )".,%, N$'#"$ `.=$%"/ b"/ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 536

)'./+, "/% =$'GG%< L;+8 3*< "H%*


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"*


9/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. X

E"* G.* $"L, "/% ;*"


10/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 54

a;#%/"$ C%H'=/"=0 ;, "*"+8%H" +' +8% "


11/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 55

!8% A'$;=% ,8'.$< 8":% 8"*


12/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 53

2;/%"/H #"*,


13/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5@

!8%/% 8", #%%* "


14/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 57

>+"+% ='*,+;+.+;'*, "+ +8% +;H% +8% )'*,+;+.+;'* L", /"+;(;%< 8"< A/'+%=+%< "

A/;:"+% /;G8+ +' 'L* " G.*QQ+8% "((^, ;*+%/A/%+"+;'* '( +8% )'*,+;+.+;'* +/%"+, +8%

>%='*< BH%*%='*< BH%*


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"$$ (/'H " ='$$%=+;:;,+ ,+"*


16/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 56

N.* ='*+/'$ ;, 8;,+'/;="$$0 /"=;,+ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? @@5

I$"=M, *%%< 8"*


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%=+;:%


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


19/394

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+, -"*."/012%#/."/0 3456

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. 5X

J"=;,H #0 +8% ,+"+% "$$'L, ('/ .*='*+/'$$%< "#.,%, '( A'L%/ ???????????????????????????????? @KK

>+'A "*< (/;,M ;, /"=;,+ "*< ;*%((%=+;:% +'A "*< 2/;,M A'$;=;%, "/% /"=;,+ "*<


20/394

Topic Analyses

Cham pion Briefs




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


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-


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-


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.


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


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/


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


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


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.


30/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


31/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


32/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


33/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


34/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


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


36/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


37/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


38/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


39/394

!"#$% '()*+,$, -+ BC)($) D6(3 5)(6)/+7.0-/6)/+ 89:;

!"#$%&'( *+&,-.


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


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


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”


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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,


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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).


67/394

r meworks

Cham pion Briefs




68/394

!"#$%&'% )*+ ,-% .))#+/0,#"% 10&20+345%6+20+3 789:

!"#$%&'( *+&,-. :;

5+0/%3?#? 63 ./3 @%>>%+


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


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

Documents

Jan-feb 2016 Ld Champion Brief