Judge: Konstantin Popov (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: Governments should implement a meat tax.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 20, 2020 07:08:47PM EST by Aaron Felings
Posted at April 21, 2020 05:52:02AM EST by Anson Fong
Posted at April 23, 2020 08:15:59AM EST by Anson Fong
Posted at April 24, 2020 08:43:23PM EST by Aaron Felings
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 26, 2020 07:33:09PM EST by Konstantin Popov
|Category||Aaron Felings||Anson Fong|
|Use of evidence:||3||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||4|
|Identification of key points:||4.3||4|
-more resources collectively
-no wars, no nukes
-reduced crime? weak impact cuz domestic crime more common
-no military expenses
-no more terrorism
-tech and medical advancements with newfound resources
-climate change benefits
-maintains that cultures could still persist as the same
-outlines system of dealing with issues, could have went more in depth
-representatives from each country, equal say, democratic
-free to live anywhere
You make a lot of good points, but I'd like to see you use more evidence to back up your claims. The more factual you are, rather than hypothetical, the better off you'll be.
|-more harm than good
-competition stimulates innovation, such as advancements in tech and medicine, used greater evidence to back up claim than the proposition
-eliminating currencies, slippery slope argument, what's next? eliminating cultures?
-losing unique cultural identity is a strong impact
-different countries have different needs and circumstances
-more risk if all of the world's responsibility placed on 1 government
-uneven taxation, rich countries vs poor countries
-chaos in people lived anywhere, greater economic risk
-too many problems for one government to deal with
-democracy is often inefficient
As the opposition it is important to remember that you should be centering your argument in response to the proposition's claims. While your critique of a single world government was good, it left many of the proposed benefits uncontested. Take your opponent's claims and negate them rather than responding with original claims of your own.
The decision is for the Proposition: Aaron Felings
Reason for Decision:
Many of the benefits presented by the proposition went unchallenged, making it difficult to vote for the opposition. The opposition used more evidence to back up their claims, but only used this evidence to refute 1 or 2 proposed benefits. The proposition mentioned the collective use of resources, reallocating military budgets to advancements in tech and medicine, and climate change efforts. The tech advancement point would have went to the opposition when Anson explained how competition stimulates innovation and advances. However Aaron combated this by mentioning how private companies will still be competing as is in the status quo. Anson's ideas were good, for example uneven taxation and economic risk. But these critiques weren't directed at points made by Aaron, and much of his early statements were left uncontested. For this reason I voted for Aaron. Great job by both sides.