Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Sumin Hwang (NEI Education) vs. Opposition: Samantha Tonn (Binghamton University)

Judge: John Vermitsky (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Sumin Hwang
    Sumin Hwang
    vs.



    Samantha Tonn
    Samantha Tonn
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sumin Hwang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 21, 2013 04:50:35PM EST by Samantha Tonn

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 27, 2013 12:27:59AM EST by Sumin Hwang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 5, 2013 01:25:07AM EST by Samantha Tonn

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 11, 2013 07:11:11PM EST by Sumin Hwang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 14, 2013 04:11:09PM EST by John Vermitsky

    Category Sumin Hwang Samantha Tonn
    Use of evidence: 3.6 4.3
    Delivery skill: 4.1 5
    Coherence of arguments: 3.6 4.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.1 4.6
    Identification of key points: 4 4.5
    Comments: Dont take the arguments personally. Instead dissect the pieces of each to respond to them. Be careful with your sources, I would have jumped on you for using the NRA etc. Also your points are excellent but get watered down when you throw around allegations of racism flippantly.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Samantha Tonn

    Reason for Decision:

    I think in the end there are three issues in the debate. Being a lawyer I actually feel I have a pretty good grasp of these specific laws.

    1.) the first proposition point is that the laws are vague in that they use the term "fear" rather than an objective std. I think the opposition does a good job here of explaining that "fear" is actually a defined term of art by the courts and legislators and contains an "objectively reasonable std." (I don't necessarily agree but I didn't see a good answer as to why the courts couldn't define the term to make it less vague through the courts.)

    2. Innocents are dying. This is a problem for the opposition but is answered in part by arguing that they are not innocent and because innocent shooters are going to jail without stand your ground laws. I think the proponent is ahead here but doesnt answer why the counter proposition of having the courts redefine the laws couldn't solve for both of these issues better (I think the permutation may be ideal but the proponent doesnt argue this.)

    3.) racial profiling. This is muddled and I don't know who has the correct statistics. I think the proponent would win this if she argued the inherent racism in society and the criminal justice system prevents the counter proposition from solving the issue and proves the statistics of the opponent untrue.

    Overall good debate, but I would find for the opposition (though I really disagree with stand your ground laws.)


    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

    PHP MySQL SUIT