Judge: Jesse Smith (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: Video games glorifying gun violence should be banned.
Eun Suk Hong
|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||Eun Suk Hong||Luke Lombardi|
|Use of evidence:||2.7||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||2||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.6||3.6|
|Identification of key points:||2.5||3|
|Comments:||First, you need to clarify exactly what you want to ban. "Games Glorifying Gun Violence" is a large topic, you should make some clarification as to what games you want to see banned, or at least be explicit that you think any games with gun violence should be banned.
Second, you need to be careful with your evidence and make sure that it's really specific to the resolution. You spent a lot of time talking about a study that was just talking about video games in general in regards to addiction, not necessarily gun violent games or even violent games
You should talk more about why, banning these gun violent games has to happen, why isn't restricting or limiting enough, what will happen if we don't ban these games?
While you did a good job making sure you addressed your opponents points, your rebuttal arguments didn't really make sense to me, and needed a lot more clarification and better articulation.
Lastly, you were clear most of the time, but at points it became difficult to understand you. Make sure you are projecting, and speaking clearly.
|First, you should use more speech time to expand on your arguments. Both of your speeches were significantly shorter than your opponents. You made a lot of good arguments, but all of them could of been expanded on and detailed more if you have used more time.
Impact your arguments a bit more, why is violating the first amendment such a big deal? You hint at it with a comment about government tyranny, but you should explain the harms of passing the plan.
You should have some form of a counter-plan, or a solution to help with the problem of gun violence.It was well explained why his plan was a bad thing, but I feel that it would of helped if you had given me some alternative as to what we could do to stop the problem. Without some form of a counter plan I could see voting proposition if he had spent more time on the impacts of violent video games, just because at least is trying to solve for those impacts.
There should be more evidence, studies showing that there is no direct link between violent video games and violence etc.
Your speaking was very clear and easy to understand, at times it did get a bit monotone, so you should work on trying to have some more emotion in your speech.
The decision is for the Opposition: Luke Lombardi
Reason for Decision:
I voted for the opposition because I bought the argument that banning violent video games would infringe upon our rights lead down a slippery slope, and pave the way to government tyranny. While this argument could have been impacted better I don't feel that the proposition answered it well. The response comparing video games to drugs didn't make sense to me in the context of the argument, meaning that this point was mostly uncontested.
Good Debate, good luck to both of you for the rest of the tournament.