“Debate 2025”

Last year, election year, AP Language students democratically decided to debate over whether Puerto Rico should become the 51st state. This year, after the assassination of Charlie Kirk during a debate titled “Prove Me Wrong,” students decided to debate over gun control laws.

A formal debate has two teams but one resolution. Selfishly, I give them the chance to indulge in refutations because I enjoy the intellectual bloodshed between opposing views. Moreover, to remain objective as the moderator and avoid my inherent inclination towards The American Constitution, I invited Professor Patricia Vera and her 8th grade students, Professor Alfredo González, and Diego Ortiz Ayala, a sophomore. The affirmative team bears the burden of proof since they are responsible for supporting the resolution. This team begins the debate with a constructive speech and concludes the debate with a rebuttal.

The Affirmative Team

Carlos Fonseca

Jorge Salcedo

Lucas Román

Juan González

Franco Pérez

Marcos Gómez

Cyrus Josephs

Micael Eboli 

The Negative Team

José Ramis

Sergio Navarro

Matías Fuentes

Gustavo Marchand

Gustavo Ochoa

Nicolás Rodríguez

Manuel Rodríguez

Emilio Pérez

Team members were randomly picked by the “wheel of misfortune” to eliminate the controversy of favoritism and acknowledge the idealism of transparency. The Negative team, on the other hand, is responsible for providing evidence against the resolution by using convincing arguments defending the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms.

1771, 1788, & 2009; 27 Amendments, 4 different states, 21 handguns, & 30-round magazine; National Firearms Act (NFA), firearm purchase, federal law, criminal record, & school shootings: All these logical appeals, intertwined in the spiderweb of reason, justified the debate’s resolution. Certainly, the clutch for the affirmative team was their solution to the problem:

The negative team responded constructively by supporting their claim against the resolution. Remember it is the resolution which gives direction to the argument.

October 2 – Refutations begin. The negative team annihilated the affirmative team with determination, persuasive intonation, and undeniable indignation. The affirmative team, however, responded eloquently by presenting historical evidence and legal terminology.  

“A man without a gun is a subject”

~The Negative Team~

“The Second Amendment is putting the First Amendment

in jeopardy.”

            ~The Affirmative Team~

Constructive Speeches

Affirmative Team: 10 mins

Negative Team: 6:30 mins

Refutations

Negative Team: 8 opportunities to refute

Affirmative Team: 8 opportunities to refute

Speed Round

No Computers

No Notebooks

No Books

11:51 mins

Rebuttals

Negative Team: 8:25 mins

Affirmative Team: 14 mins

	Affirmative Team LOGOS – PATHOS - ETHOS	Negative Team LOGOS – PATHOS - ETHOS
Constructive Speech	36	20
Refutations	30	35
Speed Round	12	13
Rebuttal	33	25

Thank you, AP LANG, for your excellent participation, fruitful camaraderie, and strong convictions. This debate covers the curricular requirements from Units 2 & 3 of the syllabus provided by the College Board Organization: Unit 2 – The Power of Evidence: Claim, Evidence, and Commentary; Unit 3 – The Power of Controversy: Argument and Storytelling.

I rest my case.