Judge: Trevor Reddick (Unaffiliated)
Resolution: Week 3: This House Believes That Nation-States Have an Obligation to Unconditionally Allow Entry for Legal Refugees.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 11, 2020 11:20:42PM EST by Chris Mok
United Nations, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” un.org
Posted at May 12, 2020 04:47:04PM EST by Helen Maag
Posted at May 14, 2020 05:58:26PM EST by Helen Maag
citations same as in previous video
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 17, 2020 04:08:35PM EST by Trevor Reddick
|Category||Chris Mok||Helen Maag|
|Use of evidence:||2.5||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.5||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||3.5|
|Identification of key points:||4||3.8|
|Comments:||Would recommend you incorporate some peer-reviewed research or at least articles from qualified authors with arguments supporting your positions for next time! It makes it more convincing and makes your argument stronger than an unsupported one.
Great job, and good luck!
|Would recommend you incorporate some peer-reviewed research or at least articles from qualified authors with arguments supporting your positions for next time! It makes it more convincing and makes your argument stronger than an unsupported one.
Great job, and good luck!
The decision is for the Proposition: Chris Mok
Reason for Decision:
The Opposition correctly identifies several key points throughout the debate but missed a couple that prove overwhelming.
First, The Opposition forwards several arguments about why free healthcare wouldn't solve some structural issues with accessibility. However, Proposition is ahead on explaining that free healthcare will mean people will seek more treatment when it's free. That, to me, means it's more accessible. I don't think Opposition wins that making healthcare free will make physical accessibility worse, just that making it free won't bring hospitals any closer. Propostion was good enough on explaining that the Opposition can't just say that the Proposition doesn't solve something, you have to prove they make the situation worse. Going forward I'd recommend you skip the physical accessibility argument and focus more on providing evidence-backed arguments for why it will be less accessible due to wait times, and so on.
Second, Proposition is the only one who clearly discusses the relationship between their arguments and the Resolution. I think the Proposition wins that there is a universal right to health, and that even if it might not be the most efficient that the government needs to promote health. Opposition needs to connect this with their arguments about it being inefficient, and why that matters in what a government's obligation should be. Perhaps the government should instead be obligated to support private healthcare because it's more effective and hence better for peoples livelihoods.
So, to conclude, I think the Proposition better proved that government's are obligated to promote people's health and that public healthcare will make it more accessible for all.
Thanks for a fun debate!