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||Jacob Gelman||Monique Saastamoinen|
|Use of evidence:||5.4||5.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.2||5|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||3|
|Comments:||Need to speak louder. Rewatch your video before you post it to make sure the audio works well. It's also clear that you're reading notes a lot. Give more eye contact.
Starting with the narrative is a nice way to bring in your audience. Make sure to use it in later speeches though so it still carries that same impact. In your second speech you go on the defensive about using it instead of defending the emotional impact of it until about a minute in.
You get caught up on some of her rhetorical flares and arguments (like her opening statement), which takes away from your time to focus on the key arguments. Your kritiks of diction are okay but you should impact them out as a procedural argument instead of just making your observations a series of FYIs.
|You also need to speak louder. Good eye contact though. In your first speech you get caught up in answering minute details opposed to framing the debate on your ground. Make them debate to you. Run some off case arguments versus just direct responses. Impact out your constitution and economy arguments more than you do.
Good selection of evidence and direct comparison of that evidence to your opponents. Make arguments as to why your evidence is better than their evidence. Why are the studies you quote more qualified?
Your conclusion speech need to be more on why the ban shouldn't be passed and less on just responding. Make sure you more fully impact out why the ban would be a bad idea (loss of freedom, economy, etc). You mention a bunch of reasons but you need to go deeper into the warrants of them.
The decision is for the Proposition: Jacob Gelman
Reason for Decision:
The opposition doesn't establish a clear singular reason to not pass the ban. Instead the opposition pokes a bunch of holes. In future debates, in the last speeches you want to collapse down to fewer arguments and warrant them out more instead of trying to answering everything your opponent says. (This is also true for the proposition, which mostly responds instead of zeroing in on key points). However, without a compelling reason to not pass the ban, I'm inclined to vote on the proposition's argument that each life has intrinsic value and that we should preserve that life over other issues (economy, etc). If the opposition impacted any one of the objections more I could have voted neg. However, without doing so I felt there was more impact work going on with the aff, which outweighed in the end.