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: Tim Keegan (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Anthony Mattis (Binghamton University)

Judge: Trevor Reddick (Baylor University)

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

  • Tim Keegan
    Tim Keegan
    vs.



    Anthony Mattis
    Anthony Mattis
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Tim Keegan

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Mattis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Tim Keegan

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Mattis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Tim Keegan

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Trevor Reddick

    Category Tim Keegan Anthony Mattis
    Use of evidence: 4.7 5
    Delivery skill: 4.7 5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.7 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.6 5.2
    Identification of key points: 4.5 4.5
    Comments: Respond to his arguments more and give me more analysis for why I should prefer your arguments over his. A very commonsense answer that I really wish you'd said is, "Yes, videogames do give us better skills, which kids who play violent videogames will deploy to kill children and do other despicable acts. We should train our kids with videogames to be well-adjusted responsible people, not Adam Lanza's." CARRY YOUR EARLIER ARGUMENTS THROUGH THE DEBATE. Good work, bring those studies in earlier and make sure to carry arguments over from the speech you made before, it's integral.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Anthony Mattis

    Reason for Decision:

    Though I think both sides make compelling arguments, I find that the lack of response in the last rebuttal to the multitude of studies cited by the negative means I conclude that there is a risk of hurting skills development and violating the Constitution by voting for the plan. Both sides would be better suited by presenting their arguments earlier in the debate. Comparing your impacts, ie. why do I care that it violates the Constitution or why should I care that it teaches kids to be bad people, would go a long way for both sides. Good debate.


    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