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||Jacob Gelman||Tim Keegan|
|Use of evidence:||5.2||3.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.9||3.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.4||3.3|
|Identification of key points:||4.2||4.1|
|Comments:||Proposition Constructive: A little fast. This isn't policy debate. I think it's really cool that you contacted the ESRB for evidence, but large organizations like this tend to respond with generic messages (I would know, I've contacted Capcom before). You probably don't need to say "open quotes, close quotes" every time.
Proposition Rebuttal: You thoroughly covered this fiat debate, but perhaps too much; I've been debating for a while now and as you can see from my comments opposition notes, I'm definitely with you on this point. You should have spent more time explicitly extending points from your previous speech to show how they are more important than anything the negative has to say, or as policy debaters put it, "case outweighs."
Proposition Closing: You're right to call him out for making a new argument in a rebuttal, but that does not mean you shouldn't answer it. Flag the new argument, claim it's abusive, and say "even if you don't buy that, here's a quick answer." That being said, you at least argue that life should come first even though you concede that your plan would infringe the first amendment, but I think this example shows why you shouldn't even allow your opponent to win that claim.
|Opposition Constructive: Also a little too fast. Why didn't you use the rest of your time? Fiat means that the proposition gets to enact his plan; if you're saying that his plan will not succeed in banning video games, that is a solvency deficit, but this is hard to win in this case because the proposition's implementation is quite vague. All of your arguments are defensive (You're plan is not good) instead of offensive (You're plan is bad). Your argument at the end isn't persuasive; if the proposition doesn't make the status quo better, but also doesn't make it worse, I vote opposition on presumption (The worst thing you can win on). If the proposition can articulate a 1% chance that their proposition makes the world a better place and you have no claims that he makes things worse, I vote proposition.
Opposition Rebuttal & Closing Remarks: Even more defensive than before. Sure, his ban might not stop people who are 18 from being exposed to mentally scaring material. Ask yourself: If you win that this statement is true, why is that a reason to reject the proposition's plan? If anything, you've proven that the plan is a step in the right direction. Again, you're fighting an uphill battle with this "fiat" debate. If anything, you're articulating why the proposition can't solve, but at the same time you aren't grappling with the specifics of the plan, which is sufficiently different than the ESRB rating system (It wouldn't be self-regulatory, it would close loopholes, etc). Your discussion of liberty being infringed is the only offense articulated at this point, but it should have been made in the first speech as you have now skewed the proposition's time allocation for his last speech. I give him leeway for this reason.
The decision is for the Proposition: Jacob Gelman
Reason for Decision:
With the only offensive opposition argument made in a rebuttal speech, I defer to the proposition's impact calculus that life should come first. Case outweighs.