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: Jonathan Speidel (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Molly Depew (Binghamton University)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

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

  • Jonathan Speidel
    Jonathan Speidel
    vs.



    Molly Depew
    Molly Depew
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jonathan Speidel

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Molly Depew

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jonathan Speidel

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Molly Depew

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jonathan Speidel

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Brandon Evans

    Category Jonathan Speidel Molly Depew
    Use of evidence: 5.2 4.6
    Delivery skill: 4.9 4.6
    Coherence of arguments: 4.7 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.1 4
    Identification of key points: 4.2 3.5
    Comments: Proposition Constructive: Cites many studies effectively, has little repetition, and features good delivery (Though I would try to make a little more eye contact). That being said, the ending should have concluded more clearly; it seemed a little abrupt.

    Proposition Rebuttal: A little too fast for a public debate. You lack clash here; you did not respond to the argument that video games could be therapeutic, nor did you explain how the movie rating system functions like your ban would. I figure that maintaining the ESRB would do the same thing as the movie rating system without infringing on the liberties she defends, so I do not understand why to do your plan.

    Proposition Closing Remarks: I need more clash from you. Even if you have functionally conceded most of her arguments in the last speech, you can still paint me a picture of how yours outweigh hers. This could have hurt you dearly.
    You cut off both speeches way too early. The video lengths allowed would give you more time to identify your key points and why they win you the round.

    Opposition Constructive: Well structured and informative. This speech has the most clash in the round, where you directly respond to not only his studies but also his warrants. That being said, you make mostly defensive arguments; I will explain why this hurts you in the Reason for Decision section.

    Opposition Rebuttal & Closing Remarks: Again, very defensive. I grant you that banning video games might be against the 1st amendment, but you do not explain why the 1st amendment is more important than saving lives like the proposition claims to. The only argument you need to win this round your claim that violent video games are actually mentally beneficial. Lacking comparative analysis or claims that these benefits outweigh the negative affect on some players that you admit exists at the top of the speech, I default proposition.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jonathan Speidel

    Reason for Decision:

    For all of the reasons I mentioned above, I end up voting for the proposition. Both teams seem to agree that there can be negative consequences from allowing video games to get in the wrong hands. The opposition's main points of contention are:

    1. Banning would not solve. This is defensive; what I mean by this is that instead of saying that the proposition's advocacy is "bad", you say that it is "not good". In debate, defensive arguments alone mean that there is no chance that the advocacy is bad, but a possibility that it is good, so why not default good? Defense only wins rounds when combined with offense.
    2. 1st amendment rights would be infringed. This is an example of offense. However, the opposition does not explain why this matters in comparison to the harms of gun violence, so it does not do much for her.
    3. Video games might actually help. Again, this is offense, but you do not explain why this helping is enough to solve the harms video games cause, which both sides agree exist in some form.

    Lacking an offensive reason to vote opposition, I default to voting proposition. Good debating, and good luck in Round 2! http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif


    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