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||Elizabeth Gellis||Jonathan Speidel|
|Use of evidence:||5.8||5.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.5||5.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||5.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||4.1|
|Comments:||I don't think your second speech is as responsive as it could be, especially on the central points he's making that are most damning to you. Ie the question of stress relief is the most offensive reason. The rest is just defense. You do a good job addressing the topicality violation over whether or not what you're advocating is a "ban."
Continuing the time argument into your last speech is a waste of your time since you already wasted :20 of his 2nd speech responding, which evened it out. If you're going to make the argument go for it fully.
|You speak in too much of a monotone voice. Try to speak with more emotion over key points. Pointing out contradictions in the other person's argument only really matters if you impact it out. Your first speech is also filled with reasons why the ban might not be needed but no offensive reason why not to try the ban. You need more offense, not just defense. Have a dis/advantage or a counter/plan or something. Otherwise, why not do the ban and give it a try? Focus more on the stress relieving nature of video games. Impact out your procedural argument more as well, why should I vote her down because of it not being a legislative ban?|
The decision is for the Proposition: Elizabeth Gellis
Reason for Decision:
The proposition wins because the opposition spends the majority of his time going for defensive arguments on why the aff might not be correct. Even if I granted 100% of these arguments it still doesn't give me a reason why not to vote for the proposition since any risk that she might be right is a reason why to implement the ban (especially when not done by the government). The opposition needs to be more offensive so as to prove why even if the aff is right on some points that banning these games is a bad idea (not just not a good idea).
Overall both sides do a good job comparing evidence and using evidence to back up your points. However, both sides could more effectively highlight the crucial elements of the debate so as to collapse to key points and prove to me why you should win. Trim the fat in your final speech and only go for what matters.