Resolved: That private firearm ownership should be banned in the United States.
A re-worded topic was released on Friday, May 18:
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States.
Public Forum Debate News & Information
-
Crossfire Briefs
Crossfire Briefs are published 10 times per year for the September through April NFL topics, the NCFL Grand Nationals topic, and the NFL Nationals topic.
For more information about Crossfire Briefs, visit the PFDebate Shop
Crossfire Briefs
2008-09 Subscription
10 Issues
$140
Crossfire Briefs
September 2008
Military Draft
$20
Available Now!
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
damn, this was a good one.
So easy…
How… Predictable.
How… Awesome.
I can’t believe anyone has anything positive to say about this. How exactly are you going to convince someone that all firearms should be banned? Constitutional arguments aside, no hunting? This topic is an embarrasement to the NFL. And they need to put someone in charge of writing topics with a clue if they want PFD to ever amount to anything.
topher: You are correct in worring about the wording. It would have been better to ban all handguns instead of all firearms. It is a defninate weakness with the resolution. I don’t know if I would go as far as you as how bad of a topic this is.
To work against the hunting issue, teams will need to provide a clear benfit analysis. Okay, people may not be able to hunt as well, but that might be a willing price to pay to save thousands of lives every year.
I kind of have to agree topher’s critiques on the resolution. In comparison to last year’s topic this is subpar at best. The hunting issue is not an argument whatsoever in the context of the round. That argument will not even make it in to the prelims of nationals and it wont be in the finals round for sure. If this was really an issue I would be more sympathetic towards the resolution; there are more pressing matters that are concerning the United States right now (i.e. Middle East, Social Security, embergency relief aid). This topic is poorly timed if anything and this year’s nationals will be disappointing.
There will be an enumberable amount of arguments indicating a shift in policy on the grounds that we need to protect our citizens. There are going to be even more extrapolated constitutional arguments. Realize that the seccond amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms and states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the second amendment is used realize that a federal ban on private firearm ownership will not infringe upon the rights of the citizens because they are still constitutionally granted the right to carry a weapon in their house or in public. Consider this: the United States federal government can place restrictions upon the constitutional rights of the citizens or states that “infringe” upon rights if questioned actions would produce a matter of domestic security. An example of this can be seen in the fifteenth amendment when it states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Before this amendment was enacted the constitution delegated powers to the states to settle state matters if the federal government did not have an established precedent.
I am on the committee. I will only respond to Topher by saying that the resolution would presume a repeal of some constitutional rights. If anyone thinks they can win this debate on the CON by saying “2nd Amendment” and “hunting,” they will surely struggle against “firearms kill x number of people each year” and “violence is decreased in nations that ban firearm ownership.”
As for handguns vs. firearms…handguns would not include assault rifles and the such. Firearms does.
Jason beat me to the punch….
I think the resolution assumes the repeal of the 2nd Amendment or at least a significant modification.
I realize that the topic committee didn’t want to limit the debate to handguns, but my initial reaction is that the wording creates very uneven ground.
The PRO must advocate no private ownership of firearms, but the CON can seemingly defend the status quo or any number of other less restrictive alternatives as been superior to the resolution.
If the less restrictive alternatives are not considered part of the debate, expect to hear a lot of loaded rhetoric because this limits the debate to the most extreme voices on both sides of the gun control debate.
My words here reflect MY opinion only, not necessarily the committee’s…
Bob, maybe, but I am not sure the status quo is so easily defendable. If I were PRO, I would argue that we have had any number of levels of gun control over the last five decades and throughout the states and the consequences has been _________________________ (death, injury, mayhem, inner city problems, etc.). The status quo and really all levels of gun control have done nothing but make the problem worse (or have limited solvency). I would argue that America’s obsession with guns is due to the fact that there is moral confusion over their value. Etc, Etc. I don’t think either side has such an easy time. Like you said, the PRO has to deal with rights, consequences of unarmed public, enforcement, etc.
I do not think that the 2nd Amendment is repealed by the resolution, but I also think that it matters. This is PFD, ISSUE debate. Cons might win a few prelim ballots hiding behind the technicalities of the 2nd Amendment, but you won’t beat a good team doing that. OUTCOMES are really important.
I’m also not sure that the SQ is easy to defend which is why I am concerned about all the ground that CON teams can get if they can advocate something short of a total firearms ban (just ban handguns or just ban assault rifles or exempt hunting rifles, etc.).
My point is that the resolution locks the PRO team into a single, and arguably, radical position. Everything that is not the topic is theoretically CON territory.
One of my biggest concerns for the PRO is finding what the policy debate folks would call a “solvency advocate”.
Finding information that says guns cause X is easy.
Finding credible sources who advocate a total ban and explain why it would solve for X will be much more difficult.
It has been a long time since I did research on a gun control debate topic. My guess is that it will be much easier to find people who advocate that everyone have a weapon than it will be to find people who advocate a total ban.
Well I simply dont see the pro really win this debate. You are right whoever said that this resolution puts pro in a radical position, much like the pro in the Intelligent Design resolution. Is it in any way possible for the pro to ban only certain firearms such as assault weapons? Without banning handguns. I think the best resolutions are ones which can easily be argued for by both sides. If any one gets any pro evidence please post.
Wow, didn’t think people would be openly dicsussing case structure on a site open to the public. Goes to show what I would know XD But, while I’m not willing to reveal what my cases will entail, I believe that “private” will be a big word. I know it will swing the majority of my pro rounds (most likely) :)
There is some evidence that can be taken by researching the impact that the ban in Australia. They banned rifles, shotguns, and the sort. The other place to examine in England. I know that neither bans it totally in the entire nation.
Jason, while I appreciate the want to include assault rifles and the such, but in trying to attach the so much in one issue, it may have skewed the ground. I would be interested if the committie discussed alternatives to the resolution like “Ban of handguns and assault rifles”. I do think that the Con will have the upper hand in the debate.
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to discuss is what PFDebate LLC mentioned. It seems to me that if the con offers a specific alternative like, we should just ban guns instead, they are offering a counterplan. In essence, the resolution is in fact a plan being placed on the affirmative with the wording of the resolution. You can call it an alternative, but that is the essance of a counterplan in policy. An alternative plan to the affirmative’s plan. The gambling topic wording, in my opinion, was perfect to avoid the threat of counterplans. I would be curious to hear the responses on the use of counterplans/counteralternatives with this topic and how to get judges/coaches from the area to understand the fact that they are prohibited.
I will let those of you who are actually debating decide whether the Public Forum judging pool will allow alternatives as a legitimate strategy. From an argumentation perspective, I think you can use alternatives to explain why the resolution is a bad idea.
Count me among the people that don’t think you can have a counterplan if there is no plan. I certainly would never envision an actual plan or counterplan (Plank 1…) in Public Forum.
I’m not sure I would consider an Alternatives approach on most topics, but in this case, where the the rhetoric on both sides is so extreme, I think it would be potentially persuasive to argue that the truth lies somewhere in between. You could perhaps even throw out a list of gun control measures that would reduce the harms without being as draconian as a total ban.
Even if you question the legitimacy of the Alternatives Con, it certainly seems legitimate to consider the ramifications of adoption of the resolution. If private ownership of firearms was eliminated, how would gun owners react? Would they obey the law? Would they practice civil disobedience and keep their firearms? Would there be an armed rebellion?
The Turner Diaries takes place shortly after the U.S. government confiscates all civilian firearms.
Thanks for the comment. In my view as one of those judges at the National tournament, if a team offers one specific alternatives, say “Ban handguns” only as a way to claim the saving of lives, I would readily accept the fact that is a counterplan despite the use of wording such as Plank 1, or Mandates. I do agree with the ability to offer a laundry list of possible alternatives and show how there are many other potential means available.
I guess my concern is in the wording. When the committee includes the “should” in the resolution, you place the Pro side at a usual disadvantage since it implies a specific course of action. This then opens the door to counterplans. Iguess I should turn this into an article and post it to the Rostrum. :-)
Sorry for the double post again, but what do you think about alternatives to the alternatives that would allow the Pro to remain within the resolutional limits?
I should mention that Patrick will probably reject the Alternatives Con position, but we have not talked about it.
Can you provide an example of a Pro alternative to the alternatives?
My gut reaction is that the resolution clearly defines the Pro ground and, at best, the Pro can argue that the alternatives won’t work.
The Public Forum speaking times are incredibly short. It is going to be difficult to have a very detailed discussion.
Sure. The con says that gun ownership must be banned on all levels of private ownership and then says that we should ban only handguns instead as an alternative. The Pro says, that we don’t need to accept the con becasue people can still use rifles and handguns by going to clubs and “renting” them from the company. I know it seems out there, but it shows the potential for regression into plans.
You don’t need a constructed counter plan, you should only need to refute the Affirmative with “Why should we ban ALL firearms when only type A B and C actually cause the majority of crimes/death”. This is pointing to a flaw in the resolution as opposed to trying to create a counter plan. While this argument may concede some ground to the Affirmative (in the sense that you have now agreed that reducing all firearms would reduce crime and deaths overall) it also fosters debate, as opposed to straying from the topic like a counterplan.
Remember, counterplans are illegal in PFD and could be a reason to vote down a team on face.
Right, but my understanding is that a team that purposes a specific action as an alternative is offering a counterplan. We should do A instead of the Aff plan. Let me show you why A is the better option. I remember the Kyoto topic and hearing the same thing. The United States should do follow the Asia-Pacific Agreement instead of the Kyoto Protocol becasue it avoids the disadvantages of the case and solve for global warming better. This to me is a counter plan. I was told by a few judges that it was perfectly acceptable becasue it was offering an alternative. Hair-pulling insued.
I would argue that those judges are wrong, but it is up to the judge to decide. I encourage all students I teach to DEBATE THE ISSUE!!!
Why does this post say that the Nationals topic is about aptitude testing, that was from a year or so ago…?
Doh! I fixed it. To much copy and paste action.
The March 2005 topic on aptitude testing was the last Public Forum topic that changed after it was originally announced. Some handbooks did not find out before they published and I know some local teams showed up at districts prepared to debate a slightly different topic.
I think the topic change was the right thing to do. I just hope everyone shows up in Wichita prepared to debate handguns.
Leave a Comment