Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)
Resolution: Resolved: The United Nation should require countries to uniformly enact substantial criminal justice reform in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at July 1, 2020 01:15:28AM EST by Randy Serafin
Posted at July 1, 2020 10:56:57PM EST by Luke Moon
I didn't see this previously (following links are from the proposition constructive):
Posted at July 3, 2020 02:12:00AM EST by Randy Serafin
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 4, 2020 11:11:23AM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Luke Moon||Randy Serafin|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.3||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.4||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||6||6|
|Comments:||comments for the first speech:
strengths: volume, use of outside research, defining terms and attempting to narrow the scope of the debate
places to improve: eye contact, body movement/gestures, vocal variety, post citations to this website to opponent can read your sources if they want to.
comments for the second speech
strengths: volume, speed/rate of speaking, use of outside research
places to improve: spend more time developing what UN peacekeepers do. How do they de-escalate police violence? if countries are meant to uniformly enact criminal justice reform it would be useful to explain ways that criminal justice reform could be enacted in the area of policing. you've made arguments that venezuela would benefit from policing reform, but it would be useful to explain why/how the policing reform venezuela needs is also policing reform that Venezuela would agree to adhere to and that it is policing reform that should be uniformly enacted among many countries.
comment for the third speech
strengths: volume, vocal variety.
places to improve: I don't agree that you should not have the burden to respond to evidence from the opponent's last speech. It was a rebuttal speech for the opponent and they only get 2 speeches compared to your 3 speeches. Should your opponent not be required to answer your rebuttal speech evidence in his rebuttal speech? that would mean that the only evidence either of you could read would be in the constructive speeches. arguably his second speech was more time pressed than your third speech because it has to be both a rebuttal and a closing, whereas you have 2 separate speeches for a rebuttal and a closing. i am not sure why the argument you are calling a strawman is a strawman. a strawman is when the opponent misrepresents or distorts a concept in order to make it easier to attack. but when you admit in your speech that the UN does fail some or most of the time (but its better than doing nothing in the face of injustice), that means it is not exaggerating to say the UN is not very good at encouraging justice. also the opponent has said that the UN is good at some elements of its job, but criminal justice reform is not one of the areas the UN is good at because its not really within its jurisdiction anyway.
|comments for the first speech
strengths: volume, speed/rate of speaking, eye contact, use of historical examples
places to improve: in addition to posting written citations to this website, you should orally cite these sources aloud during your speech. for example, you might include the author or website and the publish date of the information out loud during the speech. the speech would benefit from more body movement/hand gestures.
comments for the second speech
strengths: volume, point by point refutation
places to improve: avoid rocking/swaying back and forth during the speech. try to increase eye contact during this speech. try to bring up examples about if the UN ever tried to encourage policing reform uniformly among many countries. in your closing speech you should anticipate that the opponent will try to characterize your stance as doing nothing in the face of police brutality is bad and that even if the UN isnt 100% successful, we should try to have the UN act to stop this problem. You should explain why you think doing nothing is the safer option because the UN might make things worse than they already are, not just that they would fail at their intended goal.
The decision is for the Opposition: Randy Serafin
Reason for Decision:
This was a good debate and I enjoyed watching it.
At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition were: doing nothing to try to secure peace and international order is bad, and that the UN (although not always successful) is an organizing body that does promote good things for the international order.
At the end of the debate the most important points from the opposition were that the UN is incapable of making a difference with criminal justice reform, criminal justice reform is not within the jurisdiction of the UN, countries would say no when the UN told them to uniformly enact criminal justice reform, and that generally criminal justice reform encouraged by the UN would not be enforceable.
I decided to vote for the opposition because they had more reasons for why the UN should not require countries to enact policing reform than the proposition had in support of why the UN should require countries to enact policing reform. Based on the evidence presented in this debate, I had little faith the UN requiring countries to enact policing reform would work to make countries actually enact policing reform.