Alyssa Tharp Research Paper

In the 2007 National Finals of the Public Forum Debate, a competitive debate tournament in which teams are assigned sides of an issue to debate in front of a panel of judges in order to persuade them that the affirmative or negative side is correct. The topic of this debate was whether or not handguns should be banned for private use in the United States. This issue is easily debatable because of the amount of information and statistics on each side of the argument. I analyzed the affirmative team in the debate, where Thao Le and Alyssa Tharp argue their position. Le and Tharp stand resolved that private gun ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States. Alyssa Tharp starts off by introducing the affirmative position that handguns should be banned for private ownership. She claims that banning handguns would make society as a

She also uses cause and effect reasoning by stating that handguns cause violence, and therefore should be banned. An example of a logical fallacy that she uses is an appeal to popular opinion in that way that she claims that many people support the banning of handguns, so handguns should be banned. Tharp also somewhat argues from ignorance because of the fact that gun control has not necessarily been disproved because handguns have never been banned before. She uses this to her advantage and implies that society should try this ban on handguns in order to see results. She attempts to appeal to the audience by using logos. She uses logos in each of her claims by providing logical and rational evidence that handguns should be banned. Tharp also uses pathos because she wants to hit her audience on the emotional level because gun violence can lead to the loss of a loved