Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: Video games glorifying gun violence should be banned.
Eun Suk Hong
|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||Eun Suk Hong||Max Brauer|
|Use of evidence:||3||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||3|
|Identification of key points:||3.3||3.7|
|Comments:||Rewatch your video before you post it in order to make sure you're speaking loud enough for it to be heard. You should provide better cites (and quality cites) in your speeches, ie "Tech Level One." What is that? Why is that a qualified source? How do I look that up? You also make a bunch of assertions without evidence to back it up (it causes depression for instance, as well as your personal opinion on Virginia Tech shooter). You need to qualify every opinion with evidence, warrants, and facts.
In your opening speech you should have a very clear plan-text. Who is going to institute the ban? What exactly is the ban going to entail, etc? Remember the SHITS and include all of them within your opening speech.
You need to more directly answer your opponents points. Why is the economic hardship from the ban not as important as the violence that gets glorified? Weigh your harms versus their impacts. Also, again, you need to use more cites and evidence throughout your speeches.
Don't just point out that your opponent doesn't have evidence. If you don't cite evidence to the opposite, you don't have evidence either. If you cited something than you'd have more credibility on this point. You don't.
|Answer your opponent, not the resolution. Attack what he's saying and not just the resolution. Also more clearly establish your disadvantages and warrant them out (ie who cares if the economy loses millions of dollars? why is that an impact? why is it unique? You state we're already in a recession, which makes your econ dis/ad non-unique). You also make a lot of assertions without evidence or warrants. Don't base your arguments on your opinions. Base your arguments based upon research. Cite something for your central claim that society is violence / video games are a reflection versus the cause.
You should more clearly turn your we should focus on availability of guns into a counter-plan. You also continue to assert things like "we have shown there is no correlation between video games and violence" without citing any evidence that proves it. You say other countries use more violent video games but are less violence but have no evidence to back that point up. You need to cite where that information is coming from.
Also - give more eye contact. Look at the camera, don't down at your piece of paper.
The decision is for the Opposition: Max Brauer
Reason for Decision:
In the end, I am not convinced that video games glorifying gun violence causes actual violence. As a result I think that the risk of harming the economy outweighs the benefits of banning the video games. I also think that based upon the arguments that focusing on the culture surrounding gun violence and guns themselves would be more effective than banning the video games. This functions as a counter-plan in this round (albeit not as explicit as I would like) that I think would solve better. If the proposition pointed out that we could do the counter-plan and the plan at the same time (ie that the counter-plan isn't an opportunity cost to the plan) then I would vote for the aff since we can get rid of guns, the culture of violence, and video games glorifying gun violence.
In the end, both sides need to do a better job weighing and comparing impacts versus the other side in order to make my job easier in deciding which is more important.