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||Sara Miller||Jeff Cragle|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.8||4.6|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||4|
|Comments:||Try to talk with more energy versus such a monotone voice. Use inflection and show emotion on key points. You do a good job defining your terms, predicting counter-points and pre-empting them, as well as providing evidence for your arguments.
Good job responding to your opponent but make sure to continue to provide the same quality of sources you do in your first speech and/or continue to extend your evidence from before in this speech. Don't just go to giving assertions.
You need to weigh your impacts vs the harms of free speech more as well.
|You do a good job responding to her evidence but you don't cite any evidence that proves the contrary. Ie you say that other forms of entertainment have the same effect but have no science or studies that prove that claim. You need evidence to back up your assertions. You should impact out free speech more. Ie why is free speech more important than the right to life / social costs. Don't just assert free speech is more important. Prove it.
So even if it might or may cause violence, you have no evidence that states it won't so as per this debate it's more likely for the games to cause violence than not since one side has evidence to back up their probability. At that point it then comes down to a debate of harms vs impacts. You need to ensure your impacts outweigh and you don't do that as much as you should.
The decision is for the Opposition: Jeff Cragle
Reason for Decision:
Until the last speech I was going to vote for the proposition. The last speech lost it for me because the impact of violent video games wasn't weighed as much versus the impact of free speech. The final opposition speech does a much better job at arguing that free speech is a more important constitutional right. If the proposition went back to their evidence read in their 1st speech and talked about the number of people dying, how the violence is truly imminent, and why people dying is worse than violating free speech it would have been an easy aff ballot since the neg has no evidence to prove otherwise. However, when the proposition ends on some opinions and generalities you lose the specifics you had going for you earlier in the debate that would have caused you to win.