Judge: Trevor Reddick (Baylor 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 Trevor Reddick
|Category||Jeff Cragle||Jacob Gelman|
|Use of evidence:||4||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||3|
|Identification of key points:||3||3|
|Comments:||can't introduce studies by putting a link to them. quote from the parts that you think are important and at least reference the fact that your one study references many others or if you have a meta-review or something of that nature it would help prove consensus on your side.
do comparative analysis against what he's arguing for, the argument he has at the end of the debate is you would violate the constitution, do some analysis about why stopping gun violence is more important than this one transgression of the bill of rights.
good job, your arguments were cogent and good and made a good normative case for why a violent game ban would be bad, cuz preventable deaths are more important than a constitutional violation in my mind, but for someone else it could be very simply the opposite. So make it easier for me as a judge to determine this thats not through my own predispositions. oh and i docked a couple points because the stuff in the last speech was kinda corny. you did a good job overall though.
|I thought by the end of your first speech the debate was effectively going to be over. Your arguments were well developed,there were on point refutations to all of his arguments, i just wish that there had been a collapse to some of your stronger arguments or at least a better explanation of your arguments by the end of the debate. I think this "you don't fiat" argument is interesting but i think he's right in saying it's a normative statement so we should determine ethicality, so explain to me why the fact that it doesn't actually solve (ie. the arguments you had about why people will bypass bans and still receive the content) implicates its ethicality and explain why violating the constitution is more important than deaths. Something like, "the constitution is the baseline for ethics in teh United States, it is a contract between the people and the government that creates an ethical system of governance. Any trangsression by the state is a violation of individual liberties which is the most important impact. This piece of evidence is pretty good for that argument and then i think you win it's more improtant. carry the right arguments out and do a little more analysis and you're good. I thought you were overall better but lost it at the end.
Protecting freedom is a priori; it cannot be sacrificed for anything
Petro in 74
(Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p. 480)
However, one may still insist on echoing Ernest Hemingway "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at
once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the
end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenstyn, Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
The decision is for the Proposition: Jeff Cragle
Reason for Decision:
i vote aff because preventable deaths are more important than a violation of civil liberties in my head and the lack of impact comparison means i have to introduce my subjectivity. good debate and do more impact calc to make it simpler.