Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: Video games glorifying gun violence should be banned.
 Jeff Cragle |
vs.
|
Elizabeth Gellis |
| 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 | Jeff Cragle | Elizabeth Gellis |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 3.5 | 5.9 |
| Delivery skill: | 5.3 | 5.8 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 4.8 | 5.1 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 5 | 5.1 |
| Identification of key points: | 4.5 | 4 |
| Comments: | You need to give better citations and use more evidence to back up your points. You are a good speaker but you need more facts to back up your rhetoric. Your second speech pulls it punches more than it should. You want to show that it does create violence and not just sit on the potential of doing it. Why is the right to life the biggest impact that exists? You also need to have more answers to the counter-plan and/or reasons why the counter-plan is a bad idea. Covering it in the last 10 seconds of your argument isn't sufficient coverage since it's the central argument she's going for. |
Outline more net-benefits to your counter-plan, explain why it's mutually exclusive when you propose it, and have a clear disadvantage to the affirmative that your counter-plan solves. Impact out your time argument and tell the judge to reject them for doing that. Ie explain the voting issues. Your second speech is focusing too much on the defensive points you're making instead of the offense on why the ban is necessary. Impact out the impact on the economy, right to free speech, and bureaucracy. While you do these things eventually you front load your defense instead of getting to the heart of the debate and identifying for the judge the central points. |
The decision is for the Opposition: Elizabeth Gellis
Reason for Decision:
Until the last proposition speech functionally dropped the counter-plan I was going to vote affirmative. However, in the end there is no reason for why the counter-plan can't solve the entirety of the affirmative, which means even a 1% risk that the aff hurts free speech is a reason why the counter-plan alone is better. If the proposition did more to show why the counter-plan couldn't solve then the right to life arguments would be able to have traction against the counter-plan because the CP wouldn't solve. But if the CP solves 100% of the case then there's no reason why to do the affirmative if there's any reason why the affirmative is a bad idea. Make sure you fully answer the counter-plan by showing why it's a bad idea in addition to not being mutually exclusive.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
