Judge: Jesse Smith (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 Jesse Smith
|Category||Greg Ginder||Sara Miller|
|Use of evidence:||4.7||4.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.7||4.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.7|
|Identification of key points:||4.6||4.3|
|Comments:||First while I like that you made an effort to identify who would be enacting your plan you may want to be more specific about which branch would be doing this with, as I could easily see some one criticizing the lack of specificity in who is going to enforce the plan.
Very good job with your use of evidence, the studies you used all linked very well to your argument.
You need more impacts, Your argument in itself was very specific in that even if every case isn't because video game violence,certainly some are. Thus you are proposing to ban video games because there is a potential issue of violence for a few people. I need more reasons as to why these few cases warrant us banning video games for everyone, why is it so important to make sure they don't get access to video games? You touch on it a bit but you could use more discussion.
Lastly your delivery was pretty good,clear, easy to understand and pretty well structured, the only thing I would suggest is to try and vary your tone more, you become monotone at points.
|First, you need more arguments as to why banning video games is bad. For the first speech and most of the second you give me a bunch of reasons as to why video games might not cause violence, These are defensive arguments,you are telling me why the plan might not solve. What you need more off is offensive arguments,telling me why the plan is actually a bad thing,why, I shouldn't vote on the proposition just because there is a chance of him solving. You make some offensive arguments in your rebuttal with the government taking rights away but there wasn't enough impact discussion as to why it would outweigh the violence the proposition talked about.
Second, you might want to try and use a counter-plan rather than just try to rebut all his arguments. This way you are also solving for the problem he is identifying which gives me more of a reason to vote for you and makes it less likely I will vote for him just on risk of violence. You mention a couple of times alternative causes of violence, why not a counter plan that solves for one of those with evidence that you are solving for the greater problem.
Great job finding the flaw in your opponents Kentucky shooter evidence. There was a lot of evidence used but I feel you could have focused your evidence better, more evidence discussing the validty of his studies rather than specific examples of shootings would of been better in my opinion.
For delivery you need to try and make more eye contact and less reading. Reading makes you sound monotone and leads to the long pauses you had throughout the speech. Reading in itself isn't bad but you need to be careful how often you look down at the paper. Practicing your speech a couple of times beforehand to get familiar with the content would help with this.
The decision is for the Proposition: Greg Ginder
Reason for Decision:
I voted for the proposition mainly because I felt that propositions very specific argument was not answered by the oppositions general rebuttals. The propositions main argument was that there have been specific cases where violent video games have been linked to shootings both through encouraging violence and training. The opposition responded by identifying cases where video games did not cause harm. However, this misses the propositions point that there may not be a general link between video games and violence but clearly for specific people the link is there and we need to address it. Thus I give the proposition that banning videogames will solve this problem and the debate then comes down to if solving the violence outweighs the loss of rights mentioned by the opposition. The proposition does a better job here with his claim that the right to life is the most important right, which he solves for.
The debate was very close, and well done by both sides, good luck in future ones.