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||Luke Lombardi||Jacob Gelman|
|Use of evidence:||4||4.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.2||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||5||4.5|
|Comments:||Try to speak with more passion. Also use more evidence to support your argument. A one year increase over the status-quo also might not really be substantial / meet the burdens of the SHITS.||When responding to your opponent don't just nit-pick details. Answer and explain why they're wrong. If you're going to point out holes in his arguments you should make sure you take the next step to not have the same gap in analysis in yours.
Your second rebuttal gets caught up on minor objections instead of the heart of the argument. You need to narrow the debate down to the key parts and impact out why the constitution / free speech / for 15 year old's outweigh potential risk. You assert that such is the case but don't warrant out why outside that the USSC said so.
The decision is for the Proposition: Luke Lombardi
Reason for Decision:
If the opposition's closing speech was as strong as his opening I would have voted the other way. However, in the final speech the weighing of the impacts aren't as present and I am unconvinced that raising the age limit slightly is a significant violation of 1st amendment rights that makes it worth not implementing a slightly stricter ban. The proposition convinces me that (a) it isn't a violation of 1st amendment rights; and ( the risk of violence is more important. This is true even if I discount all additional evidence in the proposition's second speech.
In general, I think both sides could do better at using and comparing evidence and impacting out there argument since this debate is as close to a tie as I could imagine, which leaves it up to the judge to more or less flip a coin in their mind. The reason why it comes down for the aff is because I see no real reason why not to go ahead and try to do the plan when I compare the last two speeches since the opposition's focus is too defensive instead of offensive.