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||Victoria Aloupis||Jillian Boccia|
|Use of evidence:||5||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.9||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||4||3.5|
|Comments:||I feel like a majority of the last two speeches were very responsive to your opponents points, but that made you lose site of your stongest evidence proving causation. Remember to keep my focus on why your plan is a good idea, not just why the neg is wrong. I felt the evidence comparison was very good, and I thought that this helped in the end even when you lost track of many of the 1AC arguments.||You allowed the debate to be controlled by the Aff too much. I felt the 1NC evidence was good, and I was disappointed the FBI studies were not rought up in the last speech- they prove trends go down. I also feel like identifying the lack of causation would have helped immensely- you say it at some points, but there's never one solid spot where you tell me why it's just correlation. Also, I feel like you need to pre-empt the way the Aff spins your argument in the last speech- give me a reason why South Korea has lowest violence or what that relation to video games is. I know there are studies out there that say video games function as an outlet- use that|
The decision is for the Proposition: Victoria Aloupis
Reason for Decision:
Though many of the 1AC args are lost, I felt that using the examples in the last Neg speech to show that South Korea bans video games and has lowest violence is rather convincing. I feel like that's what becomes the crux of the Neg arg, so that makes it problematic to vote Neg. I also don't get a great answer to the responsibility claim that even if it's just one factor, it is a factor, and there is no positive side to violent video games, so vote Aff.
Also, I didn't see this debate get fleshed out, but I feel like the media examples the Neg gives are problematic for your position. You didn't really impact this, so I couldn't weigh it, but the Aff could easily say that if media is what promotes and makes violence okay, then banning certain forms of media from saying things like violence is okay through violent video games seems to be a way to change society. Be careful with that.
Great debate from both sides!