Judge: Brittney Bleyle (Austin Peay State University)
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 19, 2020 10:58:23AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at May 20, 2020 02:06:28PM EST by Zoella Lin
Posted at May 22, 2020 05:00:20PM EST by Zoella Lin
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 23, 2020 10:20:28PM EST by Brittney Bleyle
|Category||Zoella Lin||Maria Perez|
|Use of evidence:||6||4.4|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.3||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||6||3.9|
|Identification of key points:||6||3.9|
|Comments:||Proposition Constructive: My background is in policy debate, and I love listening to 'affirmatives' that incorporate music or performance of some type. I love Todrick Hall and Bob the Drag Queen and this song so much! Bob the Drag Queen is my favorite winner of RPDR, and I've seen every season. You have great taste. My only critique is to try to make sure you are a little bit clearer with your enunciation, especially since you are reading cards over music. It would probably be easier in a real life format, since you would likely not be speaking super close to where the music is playing, but in this format it seemed as though volume of the music possibly covered up some of that enunciation. It did seem like you got clearer as the video went on, however.
Proposition Rebuttal: Great job at handling the discourse and framing arguments brought up by your opponent. I thought the argument you made in regards to the "b" word being gendered and violent towards women was suitable, especially because your opponent didn't spend much time on it; however, I know that there is evidence out there that states that queer communities use that word as a way to reclaim it and turn it into a positive thing, since it is often used against people who are LGBTQ, not just cis-women. The video is of an artist who identifies as part of that community, and I think you could successfully argue that Todrick is using that word in this way.
Proposition Closing: I think the argument about your opponent misgendering you is very valid, especially in the context of your opponent's earlier arguments about how rhetoric and the words we use are important. My only critique is that if I were you, I would spend your whole speech time on it. I think that if you are making arguments about how this is the most important argument in the round, and I should throw out everything the opponent said because of this mistake, then you should give it your full time. However, I understand that it is difficult because there are judges out there that won't vote on arguments like this etc and that you don't have a judge philosophy to guide you right now, so I see why you made the decision to have other winning arguments in your arsenal just in case.
|Proposition Rebuttal: If you are going to make framing arguments at the beginning such as inappropriate language is problematic in this format due to the age of some of the participants, the 'B' word is degrading to women and should not be used, and the speed of the arguments are inaccessible to non-policy debaters, make sure you spend some time on each of these impacting them out and explaining why I should vote on these arguments. For example, you could say that speaking quickly is inaccessible to people who aren't policy debaters as well as people with disabilities which might prevent them from being able to process information at that rate of speed. You should vote on this before any other issue in this round, including any evidence the proposition brought up, for a number of reasons. A. Education: Debate rounds are a great educational opportunity to learn more about a subject. If I can't understand my opponent, I can't effectively respond to their affirmative which makes having an effective debate impossible. B. Accessibility: Debaters who are not trained in listening to the fast rate of speech, or debaters with disabilities that would prevent them from being able to comprehend the speech will be excluded from tournaments and discouraged from participating in future debates if we continue to allow this. This will decrease the participation in tournaments as well as ostracize a large part of the population that might want to participate, and this is bad for debate. You as the judge have to evaluate this before any other arguments in this round.
Opposition Rebuttal and Closing:
As for the time limit, your opponent made an argument asking everyone to strike any arguments made that were over the time limit from their notes/flow in order to prevent having to re-record the video. If you believe that this is not a suitable answer and that it is still unfair, you need to provide a reason for why that is not a good enough solution and for why I should vote your opponent down because of this; otherwise, I don't feel compelled to vote on it. You state that your opponent didn't provide an alternative framework; however, your opponent did provide an alternative framework, as well as stating how the proposition's arguments would still win even if I believed the opposition's framework arguments to be true. In light of this, a lot more framework comparison needs to be done. Also, if you're going for framework, you need to spend most of your time on it. If you're trying to convince me that you can't have a debate because the other side isn't adhering to the topic, then it isn't as convincing when you then go on to make arguments against their evidence as well as continuing to propagate your own arguments.
Overall, I think you have a lot of great arguments, and your speaking style is very clear, concise and confident; however, I think that you need to have a clearer strategy when debating against non-traditional plans such as the proposition's plan. It's fine to have multiple arguments in the beginning, many people go for framework as well as a disad or a kritik; it's just important to narrow down your arguments in your last speech and not try to go for too much. If you're going for framework, go all out on it.
The decision is for the Proposition: Zoella Lin
Reason for Decision:
I ended up voting for the proposition, for a couple of reasons. I feel as though the opposition's arguments against the proposition's plan aren't super responsive, and would be more responsive to a traditional nuclear energy plan. I feel as though the proposition did a better job in the rebuttal and closing at comparing frameworks and explaining why I should prefer the model of debate that is put forth in the proposition rebuttal/closing. I think the argument that nothing we ever do will spill out of the debate and that we should prefer good epistemological practices over pretend policy scenarios that never leave the room was explained well, and I think that overall that the proposition fit that model the best. Lastly, I do believe that the proposition's arguments about misgendering are important. When the opposition is making arguments in the constructive about how we need be careful with what words we use and how rhetoric is important and can be harmful, this embolden's the proposition's argument. Misgendering can be harmful, and I think that the proposition made a lot of good points in closing about it. I did receive the apology from Maria after the round, I'm not sure if was sent to Zoella as well. I do think that is a good step, but as Zoella read a piece of evidence about apologies not being enough and judges need to send a message with their votes, I think that outweighs in this case.