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: Elizabeth Gellis (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Greg Ginder (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: RESOLVED: Video games glorifying gun violence should be banned.

  • Elizabeth Gellis
    Elizabeth Gellis
    vs.



    Greg Ginder
    Greg Ginder
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Greg Ginder

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Greg Ginder

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Elizabeth Gellis Greg Ginder
    Use of evidence: 5.5 2
    Delivery skill: 5.2 4.7
    Coherence of arguments: 4.4 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.5 5.8
    Identification of key points: 4.6 3
    Comments: You do a good job responding to your opponent, using evidence, as well as identifying the key points in the debate. What you need to do a better job at is impacting out your arguments. How much violence? How often? Etc. Your first speech is much clearer on this than your later speeches. You could also do a better job at downplaying the opposition's impacts that aren't stated as strongly as you should have. You make use of very little evidence to back up your points. You use none in fact in your closing speech. The result is that everything you say comes across as a matter of opinion instead of something backed up based upon facts. You also need to do a better job at explaining how bad this economic impact will be. How much money is made from the sales of violent video games? (A lot is the answer... your first speech makes this apparent but your second not nearly enough). You also get caught up on minor arguments instead of the major points since you end up tit-for-tating every argument instead of isolating the main arguments you're making.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Elizabeth Gellis

    Reason for Decision:

    Fiat enables the plan to pass and the risk of solving violence (which is established through evidence) outweighs the risk of making some people upset (which is established mostly through opinion). While the opposition pokes holes in the proposition's argument there is no overwhelming reason why not to vote aff. In future debates you should set up off-case arguments, like disadvantages, etc, and make more use of evidence. You should have also defined the word "ban" and ran a procedural argument that having businesses enacting a partial ban (only on FPS) is unfair and not what the resolution was about. Ie while fiat can cause businesses to ban violent FPS that argument is unfair to debate against versus a governmental ban, which would potentially be better for education. So instead of spotting her fiat, you could have contested what the proposition should be allowed to fiat based upon education and fairness.


    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