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||Greg Ginder||Tim Keegan|
|Use of evidence:||4||2|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||5|
|Identification of key points:||3||3.2|
|Comments:||Don't give an example and then say you're not going to get into it because it's too soon to know. Just skip that example and get to the examples you want to use. Also, you should have a clear plan-text over what/how/who should do the ban. Be more specific so you don't have to defend more than you want to defend. In addition, you should try speaking with more conviction and excitement.
You go off on tangents and other examples very often instead of sticking to the main points and isolating why the judge should vote for you. You need to continue to cite more evidence to answer back the assertions of the opposition (in addition to pointing out their lack of evidence).
Final video list private. Make sure to double-check after you submit your link that it's working correctly.
|If you're going to run a procedural argument about what the 1AC didn't do, you should explain why the lack of specifics is unfair / bad for education and that the judge should pull the trigger on this. Your good at pointing out what the proposition doesn't do. But you fall prey to a similar mistake. You also need to site studies and evidence to back up your points instead of just asserting your opinions.
The proposition saying that the ban wouldn't cover the military = an instance of in-round abuse since an argument you made they got out of by shifting what they mean by a ban. To win the procedural argument you need to explain why the proposition's extension of violent video games versus glorifying gun violence is so unfair or anti-educational for the judge to pull the trigger. You also get caught up on side points (like what the proposition does poorly) instead of focusing more of your time on why you should win (and/or impacting your procedural argument more).
The decision is for the Proposition: Greg Ginder
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the proposition because the opposition doesn't have a reason why attempting to ban violent games wouldn't be worthwhile, mostly because the opposition doesn't impact out any of their objections to doing so. Ie in the end I have a bunch of reasons for why the aff idea might not be good, might be poorly phrased, and might have some issues that are bad; but nowhere do I have analysis on why those things are worse than the potential for kids to fire rocket launchers from a hilltop down on cars. Without coherent harm vs impact analysis the proposition's impacts are bigger, which makes it worthwhile to try the ban. Had the opposition impacted their procedural argument (the aff is extra-topical since it proposes to ban all violent video games and not just the ones that are specified by the resolution) I would have been willing to pull the trigger. Remember my lecture on procedurals. You're missing the final necessary step... the voting issue.