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||Victoria Aloupis||Luke Lombardi|
|Use of evidence:||5.5||3.2|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||5.2||4.4|
|Comments:||Proposition Constructive: Very good that you actually explained what your advocacy was at the top of the first speech! This makes it clearer to everyone what voting proposition actually means. The rest of the speech was great. I really liked how you qualified that 34 shootings matter and that you do not disrespect the victims by giving these statistics.
Proposition Rebuttal: The video is cropped awkwardly; the top of your head is cut off. Again, good use of evidence and clarity. You were very responsive as well.
Proposition Closing: Almost too much ethos coming out of this speech. Although your "break it down" for you line is great to put your opponent down, it could come off as rude. This gets worse at the end where you discount his pseudo counter-advocacy of having the parents get more involved.
|You used half of your time for both speeches, which gave you less time to make key arguments.
Opposition Constructive: You might be right that this is correlation and not causation, but you only cite one study and do not explain why yours is better than hers. In addition you do not give a clear impact to not providing the consumers with the product they need. You ask what kind of games would follow if the ban took place; why not answer the question yourself? It leaves things less open-ended. Finally, you say that the government's involvement is problematic, but only because it would cause the plan not to pass. However, in debate, fiat is presumed, meaning that whoever wins gets their advocacy passed, meaning this is a non-issue. Performatively, having your hand in front of your face is distracting. Perhaps you are holding the microphone, but surely something could be done to make this better.
Opposition Rebuttal & Closing Remarks: Nearly impossible to hear you, though this might just be your computers fault. I agree that the proposition has conflated violence with gun violence, but doing her plan only results in video games glorifying gun violence being banned, so this does not matter. The scapegoat stuff is mostly defensive; ergo, you say that her advocacy is not good as opposed to bad, meaning that if there is a risk it is good, there is no negative result of doing it. You are right to advocate for something as well, saying that parents should be more involved in children's lives. However, you do not give a policy option that enforces this, so I have to prefer the option that clearly does something on a national scale.
The decision is for the Proposition: Victoria Aloupis
Reason for Decision:
I vote proposition because I think she has clearly established the only real harms in the round and has the most convincing solvency story. Without a clearly defined counter-advocacy, I have to default to the team with more offense. Good debating, and good luck in round 2!