Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (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 Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Elizabeth Gellis||Greg Ginder|
|Use of evidence:||5.5||2|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.4||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||5.8|
|Identification of key points:||4.6||3|
|Comments:||You do a good job responding to your opponent, using evidence, as well as identifying the key points in the debate. What you need to do a better job at is impacting out your arguments. How much violence? How often? Etc. Your first speech is much clearer on this than your later speeches. You could also do a better job at downplaying the opposition's impacts that aren't stated as strongly as you should have.||You make use of very little evidence to back up your points. You use none in fact in your closing speech. The result is that everything you say comes across as a matter of opinion instead of something backed up based upon facts. You also need to do a better job at explaining how bad this economic impact will be. How much money is made from the sales of violent video games? (A lot is the answer... your first speech makes this apparent but your second not nearly enough). You also get caught up on minor arguments instead of the major points since you end up tit-for-tating every argument instead of isolating the main arguments you're making.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Elizabeth Gellis
Reason for Decision:
Fiat enables the plan to pass and the risk of solving violence (which is established through evidence) outweighs the risk of making some people upset (which is established mostly through opinion). While the opposition pokes holes in the proposition's argument there is no overwhelming reason why not to vote aff. In future debates you should set up off-case arguments, like disadvantages, etc, and make more use of evidence. You should have also defined the word "ban" and ran a procedural argument that having businesses enacting a partial ban (only on FPS) is unfair and not what the resolution was about. Ie while fiat can cause businesses to ban violent FPS that argument is unfair to debate against versus a governmental ban, which would potentially be better for education. So instead of spotting her fiat, you could have contested what the proposition should be allowed to fiat based upon education and fairness.