Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Choice of Three
 Haley Heerdt |
vs.
|
 Jeff Aberman |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at November 11, 2013 03:31:44PM EST by Haley Heerdt
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at November 12, 2013 01:49:35PM EST by Brandon Evans
| Category | Haley Heerdt | Jeff Aberman |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 4.6 | 3.9 |
| Delivery skill: | 4.9 | 4 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 4.3 | 3.7 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 4 | 3.2 |
| Identification of key points: | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| Comments: | Proposition Constructive: Very well organized. I don't think you need to separate your harms and your benefits because most of your benefits are that you solved the harms you previously listed. It also might be better to define your plan closer to when you explain how your plan solves so that the lines are more clearly drawn and you don't need to repeat yourself. Making these changes would allow you to save time, which could then be used to either make more arguments or expand on the ones already in the speech. Some of your points were blippy; some arguments need to be emphasized and more passionate than others. Proposition Rebuttal: You're right to explain why your restriction isn't vague like he characterized COPA, but you should take the next step and explain why your plan's clarity allows you to overcome his disadvantage of affecting freedom of speech. You spend too much time on explaining why your plan would be constitutional. The New Jersey and California example is fine, but you don't need to go into as much detail regarding how the Westboro Baptist Church is also restricted. Revenge Porn is not the WBC; articulate why the privacy of the victims in this instance supersedes the right to "free speech", which I think is a questionable framing of this debate in the first place because the people being recorded did not consent to publishing themselves being recorded, so I wouldn't call revenge porn being "freely given". You should make an argument that you utilize fiat, which means that this debate is not about what is legally possible in the status quo, but what should be, which means you do not have to prove constitutionality in order to get access to your plan. You did a good job of explaining why your impact matters and alluded to his impact being minuscule, but you should do a better job comparing the two. Proposition Rebuttal: Should have spent more time extending your arguments regarding how some freedom of speech is not worth protecting instead of making articulations that make this point but are seemingly new, like making the privacy claims that I explained above that I wish were in the Proposition Rebuttal. I'm not comfortable voting on seemingly new arguments in the final rebuttal, barring very rare circumstances. You should have also extended your arguments about how your restriction was in fact limited to the point that it would not trigger his impact of violating the 1st Amendment. This could have been a very different decision if the impact calculus of the other team was better. |
Opposition Constructive: It's called the resolution, not the resolved. You should not call the status quo a plan, though you can advocate for it. Good pace, very easy to follow. You put all of your eggs in one basket when you frame everything in terms of 1st Amendment Rights. I am not convinced that the 1st Amendment is inherently important in all instances without A. an explanation as to why the one restriction performed by the plan is a unique violation of it that causes serious harms, and B. an explanation of how your harms outweigh the massive harms shown by the proposition. Your warrants are also far too grounded in tradition / constitutionality; there needs to be a reason why following the constitution is important as I don't look to the law for my morals. For example, the 3/5ths clause of the constitution was bad and racist even if it was part of the constitution, and I don't care if our founding fathers are rolling in their graves for us rendering it moot by the 13th amendment. Opposition Rebuttal & Closing: You can't make new topicality arguments in the rebuttal, especially as she preempted it in her first speech. You also need reasons why her not being perfectly topical under your interpretation of the resolution is enough of a reason to a priori vote her down. Make claims of the fairness and education lost by her supposedly breaking the rules. You need to impact out topicality just like any other argument. You repeat many of your points from the previous speech without further expansion, points of which I have already highlighted the flaws. Regulation not existing in other states is not automatically a reason that regulation is bad; it's a relatively new issue, and the individual states are slow at passing legislation like this where there are probably no high publicity incidents of revenge porn in their state, which is a reason why it might be a good idea to pass the plan nationally. You start articulating an impact to not respecting federalism, but your articulation is not very definitive. Don't say "Where would the affirmative draw the line?", but instead say "Her legislation justifies other massive violations of free speech", give an example that clearly is justified by her legal standards, and explain why that example matters. Otherwise, it sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. You would be better off if you organized your speech into a section where you discuss your arguments (Off Case) and where you discuss her arguments (On Case). |
The decision is for the Proposition: Haley Heerdt
Reason for Decision:
Passing the plan is worth trying if it saves a single life as that has consistently been argued as something more important than the marginal 1st Amendment violation that may or may not occur as a result of the plan.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
