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: Anthony Mattis (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Jeff Cragle (Binghamton University)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

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

  • Anthony Mattis
    Anthony Mattis
    vs.



    Jeff Cragle
    Jeff Cragle
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Mattis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jeff Cragle

    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 Jeff Cragle

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Mattis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    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
    Delivery skill: 4.3 3.9
    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.


    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