Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

RFD: Taj v. Lexus (Gun Ban)

YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:36:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I. Resolution

"The U.S. should ban guns."

http://www.debate.org...

II. Burdens

To win this debate, PRO must argue that the US should ban guns. Banning guns means banning all guns, not just some guns or a few guns, because of the linguistic generality with which the resolution's terms are stated. (For example, the resolution says "guns" not "assault weapons" or any specific kind of gun. It says "guns" generally, and therefore PRO must argue that all guns be banned.)

CON must argue that the US should not ban guns. So, even if some guns should be banned by the United States, anything short of banning all guns, CON may still win. This is because the resolution is not about any specific kind of gun, but about guns, generally.

Because the resolution is normative, the burdens are equal. Debaters do not "set" their own burdens; the language of the resolution defines the burden because such language establishes the parameters of debate, and, thus, the subject at issue. No debater enjoys a greater or lesser burden than the other. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, and fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and function of debate.

III. Arguments

a. CON: Five arguments, four of which have direct impacts on the resolution.

(1) Culture (guns are part of american culture); (2) Law Enforcement/Military (laws could not be enforced and society could not be defended if guns were universally banned); (3) Self Defense (criminal possession of firearms necessitates the same for non-criminals who do not wish to become victimized); (4) Economic Harms (jobs would be lost as gun manufactories would go out of business); and (5) Pragmatism (no reasonable way to enforce because of impractical nature of enforcement).

b. PRO: One argument; no topical impacts.

(This argument was poorly, and incorrectly structured; this reflects the most favorable reading reasonable from PRO's case.)

(1) Patriarchy (social firearm possession is prevalent because of their function as a symbol of male penetrative power which by its existence is necessarily oppressive to socially constructed abstractions).

IV. Clash

There was no clash. CON outlined specific harms to a gun ban, and PRO essentially talked past him with an incompetent K. PRO dropped all but one of CON's arguments, and only acknowledged, but did not rebut, PRO's impacts.

There was no aspect of PRO's K which affirmed the resolution, and therefore PRO has materially failed to advance her burden, which required her to offer reasons why guns should be banned. PRO offered no way to measure the impact of patriarchy, oppression, etc.

V. Outcome

By running a K on PRO, PRO conceded the debate because a K can only be ran on CON, due to the nature of burdens. There was no clash. PRO categorically failed to meet her burden. CON was the sole contender which even attempted to meet his burden, and therefore CON wins and PRO loses.

VI. Comments

To the extent that any RFD disagrees with what I have said here, it is wrong. Anyone who has issue is free to comment, even judges who failed to produce a correct RFD for this debate. There is no world in which CON loses this debate by any reasonable standard.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:39:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:36:48 PM, YYW wrote:
I. Resolution

"The U.S. should ban guns."

http://www.debate.org...

II. Burdens

To win this debate, PRO must argue that the US should ban guns. Banning guns means banning all guns, not just some guns or a few guns, because of the linguistic generality with which the resolution's terms are stated. (For example, the resolution says "guns" not "assault weapons" or any specific kind of gun. It says "guns" generally, and therefore PRO must argue that all guns be banned.)

CON must argue that the US should not ban guns. So, even if some guns should be banned by the United States, anything short of banning all guns, CON may still win. This is because the resolution is not about any specific kind of gun, but about guns, generally.

Because the resolution is normative, the burdens are equal. Debaters do not "set" their own burdens; the language of the resolution defines the burden because such language establishes the parameters of debate, and, thus, the subject at issue. No debater enjoys a greater or lesser burden than the other. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, and fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and function of debate.

III. Arguments

a. CON: Five arguments, four of which have direct impacts on the resolution.

(1) Culture (guns are part of american culture); (2) Law Enforcement/Military (laws could not be enforced and society could not be defended if guns were universally banned); (3) Self Defense (criminal possession of firearms necessitates the same for non-criminals who do not wish to become victimized); (4) Economic Harms (jobs would be lost as gun manufactories would go out of business); and (5) Pragmatism (no reasonable way to enforce because of impractical nature of enforcement).

b. PRO: One argument; no topical impacts.

(This argument was poorly, and incorrectly structured; this reflects the most favorable reading reasonable from PRO's case.)

(1) Patriarchy (social firearm possession is prevalent because of their function as a symbol of male penetrative power which by its existence is necessarily oppressive to socially constructed abstractions).

IV. Clash

There was no clash. CON outlined specific harms to a gun ban, and PRO essentially talked past him with an incompetent K. PRO dropped all but one of CON's arguments, and only acknowledged, but did not rebut, PRO's impacts.

There was no aspect of PRO's K which affirmed the resolution, and therefore PRO has materially failed to advance her burden, which required her to offer reasons why guns should be banned. PRO offered no way to measure the impact of patriarchy, oppression, etc.

V. Outcome

By running a K on PRO, PRO conceded the debate because a K can only be ran on CON, due to the nature of burdens. There was no clash. PRO categorically failed to meet her burden. CON was the sole contender which even attempted to meet his burden, and therefore CON wins and PRO loses.

VI. Comments

To the extent that any RFD disagrees with what I have said here, it is wrong. Anyone who has issue is free to comment, even judges who failed to produce a correct RFD for this debate. There is no world in which CON loses this debate by any reasonable standard.

Thanks for voting :)
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 10:29:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:36:48 PM, YYW wrote:
I. Resolution

"The U.S. should ban guns."

http://www.debate.org...

II. Burdens

To win this debate, PRO must argue that the US should ban guns. Banning guns means banning all guns, not just some guns or a few guns, because of the linguistic generality with which the resolution's terms are stated. (For example, the resolution says "guns" not "assault weapons" or any specific kind of gun. It says "guns" generally, and therefore PRO must argue that all guns be banned.)

CON must argue that the US should not ban guns. So, even if some guns should be banned by the United States, anything short of banning all guns, CON may still win. This is because the resolution is not about any specific kind of gun, but about guns, generally.

Because the resolution is normative, the burdens are equal. Debaters do not "set" their own burdens; the language of the resolution defines the burden because such language establishes the parameters of debate, and, thus, the subject at issue. No debater enjoys a greater or lesser burden than the other. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, and fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and function of debate.

III. Arguments

a. CON: Five arguments, four of which have direct impacts on the resolution.

(1) Culture (guns are part of american culture); (2) Law Enforcement/Military (laws could not be enforced and society could not be defended if guns were universally banned); (3) Self Defense (criminal possession of firearms necessitates the same for non-criminals who do not wish to become victimized); (4) Economic Harms (jobs would be lost as gun manufactories would go out of business); and (5) Pragmatism (no reasonable way to enforce because of impractical nature of enforcement).

b. PRO: One argument; no topical impacts.

(This argument was poorly, and incorrectly structured; this reflects the most favorable reading reasonable from PRO's case.)

(1) Patriarchy (social firearm possession is prevalent because of their function as a symbol of male penetrative power which by its existence is necessarily oppressive to socially constructed abstractions).

IV. Clash

There was no clash. CON outlined specific harms to a gun ban, and PRO essentially talked past him with an incompetent K. PRO dropped all but one of CON's arguments, and only acknowledged, but did not rebut, PRO's impacts.

There was no aspect of PRO's K which affirmed the resolution, and therefore PRO has materially failed to advance her burden, which required her to offer reasons why guns should be banned. PRO offered no way to measure the impact of patriarchy, oppression, etc.

V. Outcome

By running a K on PRO, PRO conceded the debate because a K can only be ran on CON, due to the nature of burdens. There was no clash. PRO categorically failed to meet her burden. CON was the sole contender which even attempted to meet his burden, and therefore CON wins and PRO loses.

VI. Comments

To the extent that any RFD disagrees with what I have said here, it is wrong. Anyone who has issue is free to comment, even judges who failed to produce a correct RFD for this debate. There is no world in which CON loses this debate by any reasonable standard.

Just wondering if you actually know what a K is. I didn't run a K at all, taj just said I did because he doesn't understand what a K is either.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 1:22:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 10:29:46 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:36:48 PM, YYW wrote:
I. Resolution

"The U.S. should ban guns."

http://www.debate.org...

II. Burdens

To win this debate, PRO must argue that the US should ban guns. Banning guns means banning all guns, not just some guns or a few guns, because of the linguistic generality with which the resolution's terms are stated. (For example, the resolution says "guns" not "assault weapons" or any specific kind of gun. It says "guns" generally, and therefore PRO must argue that all guns be banned.)

CON must argue that the US should not ban guns. So, even if some guns should be banned by the United States, anything short of banning all guns, CON may still win. This is because the resolution is not about any specific kind of gun, but about guns, generally.

Because the resolution is normative, the burdens are equal. Debaters do not "set" their own burdens; the language of the resolution defines the burden because such language establishes the parameters of debate, and, thus, the subject at issue. No debater enjoys a greater or lesser burden than the other. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, and fundamentally misconstrues the purpose and function of debate.

III. Arguments

a. CON: Five arguments, four of which have direct impacts on the resolution.

(1) Culture (guns are part of american culture); (2) Law Enforcement/Military (laws could not be enforced and society could not be defended if guns were universally banned); (3) Self Defense (criminal possession of firearms necessitates the same for non-criminals who do not wish to become victimized); (4) Economic Harms (jobs would be lost as gun manufactories would go out of business); and (5) Pragmatism (no reasonable way to enforce because of impractical nature of enforcement).

b. PRO: One argument; no topical impacts.

(This argument was poorly, and incorrectly structured; this reflects the most favorable reading reasonable from PRO's case.)

(1) Patriarchy (social firearm possession is prevalent because of their function as a symbol of male penetrative power which by its existence is necessarily oppressive to socially constructed abstractions).

IV. Clash

There was no clash. CON outlined specific harms to a gun ban, and PRO essentially talked past him with an incompetent K. PRO dropped all but one of CON's arguments, and only acknowledged, but did not rebut, PRO's impacts.

There was no aspect of PRO's K which affirmed the resolution, and therefore PRO has materially failed to advance her burden, which required her to offer reasons why guns should be banned. PRO offered no way to measure the impact of patriarchy, oppression, etc.

V. Outcome

By running a K on PRO, PRO conceded the debate because a K can only be ran on CON, due to the nature of burdens. There was no clash. PRO categorically failed to meet her burden. CON was the sole contender which even attempted to meet his burden, and therefore CON wins and PRO loses.

VI. Comments

To the extent that any RFD disagrees with what I have said here, it is wrong. Anyone who has issue is free to comment, even judges who failed to produce a correct RFD for this debate. There is no world in which CON loses this debate by any reasonable standard.

Just wondering if you actually know what a K is. I didn't run a K at all, taj just said I did because he doesn't understand what a K is either.

What you did was not present arguments which affirmed the resolution in any meaningful sense, while attempting to use a series of quasi-philosophical principles which you don't really understand to dance around the resolution. It is not technically a K, but in that you failed to affirm the resolution, while PRO, you ran what can only reasonably be categorized as a K. But yes, you did not run a conventional K (to the extent that K's are conventional).

What I wondered when I read this resolution is if you understood what debating is. If you agree to a resolution, then only the resolution is what you debate, and nothing else.