Judge: Brittney Bleyle (Austin Peay State 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 Brittney Bleyle
|Category||Jonathan Speidel||Anthony Mattis|
|Use of evidence:||5.1||5.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.3||5.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||5.4|
|Identification of key points:||5.4||5|
|Comments:||I really liked that you pointed out your opponent's new arguments in his last speech; because you pointed that out I didn't evaluate those arguments of his. Pointer: You can cite disadvantages to the counterplan and still say "perm do both", otherwise known as doing both plans. Just say, even if you don't buy my arguments that there are disadvantages to his counterplan, there is no reason why it is mutually exclusive, so do perm do both.||Great job pointing out the disadvantages to his plan and why the counterplan is better. When talking about the harm to the video game industry that would be done by the ban, you could go beyond just citing first person shooters and games we typically think of as violent; Megaman or Metroid would be good exampled of this. Both are huge series and used guns to 'kill' enemies. Also, I agree with the proposition that you shouldn't make brand new arguments in your last speech.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Anthony Mattis
Reason for Decision:
This was definitely the best debate I have judged so far from the class tournament; therefore, I gave you both very high speaker points. I ended up voting for the opposition because I bought his argument that there are disadvantages to the plan such as hurting the game industry. The proposition does respond to this but other than the wiiplay the evidence isn't as new and up to times as the opposition's. For both sides there could be more evidence comparison/clash.