Judge: Daniel Friedman (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 Daniel Friedman
|Category||Monique Saastamoinen||Sara Miller|
|Use of evidence:||4||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||I thought you started off strong, and consistently you were firm and dedicated to your points. You were clear and persuasive, but by the end I felt as though you lost hold of your strongest evidence and were relying more on correlation than causation. By the end of the last speech I felt like I had pieces 1,2,3, and 5- but missed what linked them all together: number 4. In the first speech you had the evidence from Professor Stanser of Wisconsin, but by the end I don't have a good explanation of that.||I thought your use of evidence was good throughout the debate. I thought the video games as an outlet argument was good and was never responded to directly, so I felt like that should have had more focus in the closing speech. I feel you should spend time explaining why rights are more important than life- I don't ever get a great explanation of that. I also was a little confused by the "media is key to the economy" stuff in your last speech- I feel like time would've been better spent explaining what you already had.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Sara Miller
Reason for Decision:
Ultimately, I vote Neg. I feel that without a good explanation of why specifically video game violence causes real violence, and when the Neg is making arguments that specifically say you've got it backwards, video games are an outlet, it becomes tough to vote Aff. Good debate both of you! It was close!