Round 2: The US congress should enact legislation designed to decrease gun violence.
Necessary background: St. Olaf has become marijuana guy. In semifinals of the last plum, Cal/Graham were opp and the topic was “TH would prefer the Lombardi trophy to an oscar.” Naturally, the Olaf team defined the Lombardi trophy as a metaphor for objective truth and the oscars as subjective truth. Which can only imply the Lombardi trophy refers to a new federal policy to legalize and tax marijuana. Cal/Graham ran a states counterplan, a political capital DA, and T as an afterthought. This apparently only angered the judges, who just wanted to relax and see some reefer madness not a reenactment of the federalist papers.
Miles/Chris (opp): After running through multiple scenarios about different gun policies and potential counterplans, their opponents ran legalize weed to reduce gang violence. So they performed an a capella version of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers theme while metamorphosizing into Cal and Graham to ran the exact same states counter plan and political capital DA. Instead of T, they accused St. Olaf of being a bunch of liberal hippies who want to give drugs to children so they can become drug mules to Canada and/or Europe using their Norwegian connections.
Graham/Cal (gov): We discussed three different plans: background checks, removing the gun show loophole, and gun sentencing enhancements (mandatory increases to jail time if someone commits a crime while in possession of a gun), and settled on gun enhancements. The opposition’s strategy was counterplan to do the two options we didn’t choose and say perms are not allowed because we didn’t pre-perm the counterplan in the plan text. But topical counterplans are fine. Cal went hard for the perm even though it broke the rules of parli debate.
Ryan/Ben (gov): They ran background checks, ban assault weapons, and ban automatic hand guns. The opposition from St. Cloud decided the optimal counterplan was stricter background checks with intense psychological evaluations. And that without checks on the government, it would lock everyone into a box and throw away the key. Forever. After the round, one of the opponents asked Ben what he thought of the box “argument” and how to improve it. Ben paraphrased Barney Frank when he said, “It is a testament to the strength of our first amendment that you are allowed to speak such utter nonsense … Talking to you would be about as interesting as talking to a dining room table.” His specific paraphrasing being, “I think if you clarified the warrants and specified the impacts more, your argument would be more persuasive.”