Guns

Your Argument:
Citizens who have completed gun courses and have obtained a license, which
includes a background check, should be allowed to carry guns on their person
whenever they are not in a courthouse, post office, police station, town hall, and
any other town government buildings. It is their constitutional right to bear
arms. Guns are available so that the people of this country can protect their
families, themselves, and their property. In an ideal world, there would be no
black market trade and smuggling of weapons. In an ideal world, why, you would
not need a weapon for anything because everyone would follow the rules and
leave each other in peace. That is a fantasy. That world does not exist. This is the
world we live in and we need to react appropriately to keep ourselves safe.
Your Opponents Argument:
The bad people do not smuggle guns in from other countries. Thugs that
terrorize cities are not the mafia with connections. These low life criminals get
their weapons from the upstanding citizens who insist on carrying. Bad people
use guns stolen from good people. The more guns you allow citizens to have, the
more guns end up in the hands of gangs. Those same guns will be used against
law-abiding citizens and the police officers who swore to protect them. You are
not solving the problem by adding more weapons to the equation. You are just
dousing the fire in gasoline under the misguided pretense that it will somehow
tackle the flames. It is ludicrous. If there are no guns on the street at all, which
would be easier to obtain if we stopped pumping them out there, then there
would be no need to protect yourself with bullets. Police will be there to protect
you with police-issue weapons if need be.
Your Rebuttal:
Penalizing the general public by violating their constitutional rights because a
certain group of individuals have decided to abuse said right is flawed logic at
best. Following that logic, people would be forced to use cabs because some people
decide to drive drunk. Any neutral entity that is abused by a few will become
maligned and ruined for the many following that logic. We are not a police state.
We should not have to rely solely on the police to take care of ourselves. We
should have the option to defend ourselves. The constitution says so.

What if the cops dont get there in time? Would you sit around twiddling your
thumbs until police find your home while a burglar terrorizes your family? No!
You are going to defend them. It is your duty to do so, and that is not always
possible with fists alone. There is no possible way to rid this country entirely of
guns. You cannot just go from house to house raiding dressers and trunks. It is a
violation of privacy against law-abiding citizens. The people of this country do
not deserve that. Stripping the people of their personal means of protection
means treating them like criminals. If they have done nothing wrong, they need
not be harassed.
Drilling
Your Argument:
Drilling should not be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in
Northeast Alaska. This pristine wilderness is one of the best-preserved natural
areas in the United States. The habitat is home to many indigenous species,
including the Porcupine Caribou. These majestic creatures are named for the
Porcupine River, which they cross annually in their migrations. This area and,
thus, the reproductive cycle of the species would be irreparably damaged by
industrial-scale oil drilling. The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council stands in official
opposition to any drilling in the arctic refuge. Because of this, any oil extraction
in the area could only be interpreted as callous disregard for their rights and
heritage. Additionally, the Gwichin tribe relies partly on the Porcupine Caribou
as a food source, out of both necessity and tradition. Drilling would not only
damage the environment and constitute a racial marginalization of Alaskas
indigenous tribes, but would also lower the quality of life for the American
citizens who are a benign part of the Porcupine River ecosystem.

Your Opponents Argument:

Drilling should be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Northeast
Alaska. Those who argue against drilling would have you believe that the
entirety of ANWR would be destroyed, but the proposed drilling would only take
place in a small portion of the refuge. Our countrys sovereignty is in peril
because of our dependence on oil from foreign countries. To ensure our fiscal
independence, our nation has an obligation to utilize all available domestic oil
resources. The needs of the environment, while important, are trumped by the

needs of human beings. If industry were constrained by the fear of causing even
negligible environmental harm, the trees could never have been cut down to
build the ships Columbus used to discover this land in the first place.
Guaranteeing the security and financial progress of future generations ought to
be the primary goal of our government, and ANWR drilling is an exemplary way
to accomplish that.

Your Rebuttal:
This small portion that would be drilled is 1.5 million acres. That is more than
five times the area of New York City and almost eight percent of the total area of
ANWR. Even if a person could somehow justify the environmental harm this
area would suffer, oil drilling would expose a much greater area to the risk of
spills and other industrial accidents. The oil that is available in ANWR is
primarily oil shale, which is very expensive to extract and even more so to
process. Prioritizing the development of alternative energy sources would be a
much more effective way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Apart from a financial consideration of costs and benefits, the natural beauty and
uniqueness of ANWR and its indigenous species ought to be considered to
have intrinsic value. Even if oil could be cheaply extracted and processed (which
it cannot), drilling would still be unethical because making money will never be a
higher value than preserving a breath-taking and threatened landscape.

Voting

Your Argument:
Voter identification laws are a violation of the US Constitution and should not be
allowed to become a part of any states laws. The Fifteenth Amendment protects
a citizens voting rights from being legislated against based on their race or color.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment protects voters from being discriminated against

based on their age. Voter identification laws violate these two amendments in
that they are designed to suppress minority and elderly voters.

The Republican party is the driving force behind voter identification laws and
uses them to coercively manipulate voter turnout. Minorities are unlikely to vote
for Republican candidates because of the harsh stance most of them have on
immigration, just like the elderly who are disenfranchised by GOP plans to
privatize their health care. By requiring extraneous identification, Republican
lawmakers systematically discourage citizens in these groups from voting.

Your Opponents Argument:

Voter ID laws are an important way that we can reduce the rampant election
fraud that plagues our nation. If a person is really a citizen of the United States,
they should have no problem demonstrating photo ID to prove it in order to vote.
Conscientious citizens should not mind a little scrutiny unless they have
something to hide. These laws also prevent people from voting multiple times
and at multiple polling places.

The only reason that someone would oppose these laws would be from a desire to
elect candidates fraudulently. In the past, there have been many such cases
where close examination has revealed that various states voter rolls include
double entries, dead people and even people who never existed. Our elections are
very important and need this legislation to make sure that they are conducted in
a way that prevents special interest groups from tampering with them via fraud.

Your Rebuttal:
Electoral fraud is nowhere near as common as the proponents of voter ID laws
would have you believe. In the rare cases that it does happen, it usually does not
come in the form of fraudulent ballot-casting, but in the form of tampering from
the legislature or the judiciary, such as the case of Bush v. Gore. If any doubt
remained, the true motive of voter ID laws was revealed in June of 2012 by Mike
Turzai, a Pennsylvania congressman who stated at a meeting that voter ID laws

would allow [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Representative

Turzai unwittingly exposed the partisan nature of these laws, and the intent of
Republican lawmakers to suppress the vote of elderly and minority voters.

Great presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D.

Roosevelt were all elected without the need of voter identification laws to
manipulate voter turnout. As constituents, we should demand that legislators
shift their attention from voter suppression to creating innovative solutions to
problems that threaten the progress and security of future generations, such as
issues with our education and healthcare systems.

Top Tips

Dont be deferent!
A lot of your time on the floor will be spent responding to both judges and your
opposition, and some participants fall down in retreating from their original
assertions when confronted by criticism from the panel of experts. In my
experience, confidence in defending your arguments from the criticisms made by
the judges is critical in the overall result. Don't be afraid of offending them! Some
of the most successful teams pick up a lot of points in criticising the focus of the
judges' questions. Answer them directly, but don't let them subvert or change the
course of what you're trying to say. Tackle them head on.
Be Bold!
Often, people will try to interpret a debate too narrowly. The debates are
carefully selected so that there are good arguments to be made on either side,
narrowing the debate could show a lack of understanding or confidence, so grasp
the debate fully and be bold in what you say. Often a strong position can bring
out the issues at the heart of the debate, allowing you to flourish more visibly
with your coherent arguments!
Dont back down!
Unfortunately for some of us, during the competition we can often find ourselves
arguing for motions with which we disagree. Far too many competitors, in

realising this, seek to compromise with their position in order to reach a more
balanced, 'neutral' sentiment. It's understandable, but fundamentally not an
effective way of winning the argument in Debating Matters. The judges will be
looking for your ability to take your argument to its ultimate logical conclusion,
and defend the most radical of suggestions with skill. If you see your opposition
succumbing to this desire to extend the olive branch, do not hesitate to get stuck
in.
Statistics are good but
Use them to support your points but beware! It is very easy to find statistics from
your perspective but be prepared to back them up with multiple sources and
always cite your references and sources. It is very easy to become over reliant on
them, so don't depend on them. There is a good balance between arguments and
evidence, so try and aim for a good mix with statistics only when needed.
Know your argument
Know your argument, but be flexible with it. It is quite possible that somebody
will offer a new perspective on your argument. This does not necessarily directly
contradict what you have said, but might prove a good discussion point. The
ability to respond to these new ideas, while linking them to your original
argument, will demonstrate the ability to listen, think, and respond to different
points.
Judges questions: dont panic!
The judges will probably go straight for your arguments, so don't panic! Stand
your ground and fight hard on points. If they ask tough questions, take a little bit
of time to consider your answer. It is very easy to get wrong footed and jump into
something too quickly and end up saying things you later regret. Take your time
and address each question without rushing. Remember there are two of you, so
work together with your partner to help give a united front. At this point, make
sure you are sticking to the debate topic too, the judges may be giving you subtle
hints if they feel the debate isn't quite on track, so be sure to pick up on this if it
is the case.
Take a principled stand
The judges will be looking for your ability to defend your position to the extreme.
Make sure you know your position inside out before you compete, as there is no

room for altering the intention of your motion in the Debating Matters structure.
Be prepared to take on some uncomfortable and fundamental positions - don't
draw back from defending principles which are difficult to tackle in public
debate. Your ability to challenge the fundamental assumptions and values that
lie behind contemporary debates will be rewarded.
Audience questions
Do not underestimate this section. This lasts a long time when you are under fire
from all angles but this is a very important part of the debate. Tackle as many
questions you feel comfortable with and try to pick up on questions that are in
support of your side. During this section, start thinking about the closing
summations and really try to pick up on any particularly weak area of your
opponent's arguments.
Read the news
Talk about current issues with friends and relatives. If you keep generally up to
date with the news and current affairs, this might be relevant in one of the
future debates and helps to get your mindset into a debating and critical one,
which I found very useful. Practicing with your team is also good, our team did
this a lot anyway before we even started debating and it can be quite interesting
and thought provoking to hear and respond to other people's opinions.
Understand the material
Understand the material - if you have well prepared speeches, but also a strong
command of the facts and ideas surrounding the issue, you will find it far easier
to respond to counter-arguments and points from the floor that you may not have
considered. The Topic Guides are an excellent starting point for this - they focus
on the heart of the debate. Talk through the issue with friends and relatives often such informal discussion will help to build up interest in the subject and
aid the formation of a coherent argument.
Speak slowly
Try and stay calm and speak slowly. Whilst the time limit is fairly tight, it is
better to have a calm and mannered presentation than a rushed one which tries
to cram too much in. Place your strongest arguments first to get them into the
debate early, don't leave key arguments until later as you may not get the chance
to use them. That said, saving a few little bits of information or smaller

arguments for later on can work very nicely and help to sway the debate in your
favour during the cross-examination.
Enjoy yourself!
I think the most important thing is to enjoy yourself and to have fun, which
sounds clichd and tedious, but I loved every minute of the competition. I took a
lot of valuable experience with me and I honestly never expected to get past the
Qualifying Rounds. Whilst you are there chat to people, make new friends and
throw yourself into every debate, whether you are watching or taking part.