Judge: Jesse Smith (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 Jesse Smith
|Category||Anthony Mattis||Mckensie Stoltzfus|
|Use of evidence:||5.8||4.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.3||5.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.3||5.3|
|Identification of key points:||5.3||5.3|
|Comments:||Firstly, really good job with your use of evidence, you used a lot, and did a very good job of explaining why your evidence mattered.
Regarding delivery skill, there was nothing wrong, you were fairly clear, though I think you should think about having a bit more emotion in your speech
A couple of pieces of advice, first, make you make it very clear what you are advocating. You begin the speech by saying that you are banning video games, but then later in that speech you talk about a supreme court decision regulating video games and why that was a good thing. If im you're opponent, I just argue that court decisions like that are enough. Also, make it very clear why we have to ban videogames, why any other option isn't enough. Lastly, in your first speech be more specific about the type of game you would ban. You were very broad, leaving open a wide scale, that in the future opponents may use to argue against you.
|First, you did a good job, making sure you responded to most of your opponents arguments, your delivery was pretty clear, easy to follow and understand. I think you could be a little more emotional within the debate, but there wasn't a problem
You need to use more evidence! You cited a couple of studies, but the fast majority of arguments you made included no evidence, while your opponent used lots of evidence. Correlation without causation isn't a good enough argument when hes citing that many studies. You need to bring out your own studies saying violent video games aren't bad. Second, you need to give more explanations regarding alternatives. In the status-quo parents are already suppose to be helping, how can you make them help more. Lastly, why is banning video games a bad thing? Whats the impact if we ban video-games, just saying his reasoning is wrong isn't good enough.
The decision is for the Proposition: Anthony Mattis
Reason for Decision:
This was a good debate, and was fairly close. I voted for the proposition for a couple of reasons, firstly a lot of evidence was used, and the evidence fit together to make a very good argument. Second, I felt like the opposition was purely defensive, I was never given any reasons for why banning video games is bad, what is wrong. There was never a clear reason to vote for the opposition in my opinion.
Good Debate, and good luck in the rest of the tournament.