Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: Video games glorifying gun violence should be banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Jillian Boccia||Elizabeth Gellis|
|Use of evidence:||6||6|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.3||5.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||5.5|
|Identification of key points:||5.4||5.1|
|Comments:||Great use of evidence and arguments to support the resolution in your opening speech. It would be made stronger if you had a clearer plan-text. Who is going to institute the ban? How will it be enforced? What kind of games exactly will be banned?
You lose some of your gusto in your second speech. Keep up the energy of the first speech. Rewatch yourself and make sure you're speaking with as much force as you do in your first. Again, good use of evidence. You also take up some points that don't seem as relevant (ie extra points for head shots) versus focusing on the key points your opponent is making and the impacts of your argument and why the ban could be successful.
|Great use of evidence and responsiveness to your opponent. Your argument would be made stronger however if you ran some off-case arguments versus just responding to their case arguments. Ie run a formalized counter-plan versus just some hypothetical and/or impact out your taxation/economy disadvantages more in relation to the affirmative.
Rewatch the video before you post it. Some portions of it is glicthy on the recording end. If it's like that you should redo it. Don't let the tech get in way of your delivery. You should also compare why your evidence is more qualified than their evidence (ie you both read experts so now you have to debate about which experts are more qualified / which studies are better).
The decision is for the Opposition: Elizabeth Gellis
Reason for Decision:
This was the best of the online debates I watched overall. You two should both consider joining the debate team since you would both be good at it. The evidence citation alone shows you put in a lot of prep into it.
In the end, I vote for the opposition because I found that her argument and cites that playing video games decreases violence to be stronger (not responded to as well by the opposition) and that her CP (which could have been made more explicit) to focus on guns, mental health, and society would be more effective and curbing violence than an outright ban on video games. I think the proposition should have pointed out that the CP and the plan could have been done together (no reason why it couldn't) and I think both sides should have done a better job comparing evidence... ie which expert/study is more qualified and why instead of just citing studies. There also could have been a better weighing of impacts. However, overall, both sides did a very good job at representing their position. The proposition lost essentially because she was a smidget less responsive to her opponent.