Judge: Brandon Evans (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 Brandon Evans
|Category||Anthony Mattis||Jeff Cragle|
|Use of evidence:||5.1||3.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.7||3.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.9||2.8|
|Identification of key points:||3.4||3|
|Comments:||Proposition Constructive: Performatively, I am mixed on this. You come off as slightly aggressive; maybe you are passionate about this subject and maybe this was intentional. Also, you look down a lot more than is desirable. Substantially, this might be my favorite speech so far. You clearly stated the criteria in which a game would be deemed subject for banning, discussed the actual causal factor of your studies, and even pre-empted the question of constitutionality. The one thing that is missing is the discussion of your plan's mechanism. I would like to know how exactly your plan bans video games. On a side note, the argument you made regarding training simulators is very interesting, but possibly hurtful to your case. If you somehow tied this into a critique of the U.S.'s foreign policy, it might make for a cool twist on the topic. Otherwise, you open up the floor for the opposition to say "Yeah, these games are good because we need a strong military." Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself for a public debate, but I'm genuinely intrigued about the possibilities.
Proposition Rebuttal: Great evidence analysis! You might be the first person I've seen to actually win that you're constitutional instead of winning that lives matter more than constitutionality / liberty.
Proposition Closing: I like that you tried to minimize the importance of constitutionality, but I think you should not have conceded that you are in fact unconstitutional, and I definitely would have liked some more of this analysis in the rebuttal speech. Also, you might want to make some appeal to fiat, which means that your plan would pass regardless of its legality.
|Opposition Constructive: Should have used your full time. All I get from this speech is that statistics can't prove causation (Defense), that perhaps the constitution means your plan can't be enacted (Defense at best; fiat probably resolves), and freedom will be lost as a result (Offense if impacted out; why do I care about freedom vs. lives lost?).
Opposition Rebuttal & Closing: I think you are fairly good at analyzing your opponent's evidence, but I also think you need to introduce more of your own. You're starting to do some impact comparison regarding life vs. liberty, but I still think this lacks a real impact. Slippery slopes are fallacies, and unless you can prove that this particular infringement is existent (He refuted your points pretty well) and egregious enough to reject even if people die as a result, I will have to default to the proposition.
The decision is for the Proposition: Anthony Mattis
Reason for Decision:
I default to life being more important than liberty without a great deal of analysis. The opposition would have had more lee-way on this issue if he had argued that the plan has no chance of saving lives. At the point where the proposition is giving good analysis of his plan being potentially constitutional and why this issue is inconsequential in comparison to the next Columbine, I vote for him.