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: Mckensie Stoltzfus (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Victoria Aloupis (Binghamton University)

Judge: Trevor Reddick (Baylor University)

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

  • Mckensie Stoltzfus
    Mckensie Stoltzfus
    vs.



    Victoria Aloupis
    Victoria Aloupis
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Victoria Aloupis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Victoria Aloupis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Trevor Reddick

    Category Mckensie Stoltzfus Victoria Aloupis
    Use of evidence: 5 5
    Delivery skill: 5 4.9
    Coherence of arguments: 5 4.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 4.9
    Identification of key points: 4 3.9
    Comments: maybe some more studies or reasons that banning violent videogames outright is a good idea other than kids would be good arguments to say to this counterplan. i thought you won coming out of the first speech you made, however the problem was that you spent all this time talking about development when she'd already done that work for you. The first negative speech should have been, "All her studies are about children, counterplan is ban violent videogames only for children, here are the 4 reasons why" and then you should have used your speech to elaborate economic issues, first amendment, why game creativity and creation is important, all reasons that violent video games can be good in the abstract so thus why banning them all is bad, but banning for kids solves everything she has put forward. This means focusing more on "net-benefits", or the unique reasons to vote negative at the end of the debate. The counterplan was smart I think the way you deployed it in this round just wasn't enough. you got bogged down in why it might not solve rather than why it's better.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Reason for Decision:

    opposition doesn't do enough work on the reasons that violent videogames are good ie economics or first amendment, and thus the risk that kids will get the games outweighs because violence is bad. Both need to do a better job of weighing impacts against eachother, ie why is economic impact more important than generic kid violence impacts.


    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