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||Luke Lombardi||Jonathan Speidel|
|Use of evidence:||4.1||4.1|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||Watch your video before posting it. Even with my volume turned all the way up it's difficult to hear you. Speak louder and/or closer to your mic. You should have a more specific plan-text of what exactly is going to get banned and by whom in your first speech.
You should continue to rely on evidence in order to respond to your opponent in your second speech. Also, don't make an argument that says your plan can be overturned in the future if it fails. Explain why it will work. You do a good job at impacting pros v cons. Do more of that. You also need to directly respond to his ban gun cp (ie mention that it isn't mutually exclusive and we can do both at the same time).
|Try to keep your counter examples more on point versus going off on talking about other bans. Get into the data and evidence. Also impact out your objections more. It's not enough to prove the aff to be a poor idea, you have to prove it's a bad idea. Ie even if it's unlikely that video games will cause gun violence, why not try to ban the games? You have a couple of arguments that could be perceived as a counter-plan but they aren't mutually exclusive with the proposition's plan.
Several times you say "studies show" without saying what studies they are. Also when you do give cites you don't give enough information for someone who was interested in finding it to be able to. Do a better job citing your evidence and explaining why your evidence is better than theirs. Why is crippling the gaming industry and wiping out entertainment more important than the potential of killing people?
The decision is for the Opposition: Jonathan Speidel
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opposition because the counter-plan (while could have been made more explicit) isn't answered by the proposition. The counter-plan was to ban guns, not video games glorifying gun violence. He argues that banning guns would solve all the problems the aff points out. At that point any risk that the ban on video games might hurt the economy, eliminate the ability to relieve stress, or anything else is a reason for why the CP is a better option than the plan. The proposition should point out how we could do both simultaneously or defend the right to own guns and how usage of guns could be responsible if not for video games. However, without either of those arguments the CP solves all the case and avoids the links to the reasons for why the proposition's plan might be bad.