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 June 29, 2020 10:27:44PM EST by Minseo Shin
None available for this speech.
Posted at June 30, 2020 03:31:17PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 4, 2020 03:15:18PM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Minseo Shin||Teresa Nuckolls|
|Use of evidence:||3.5||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||5|
|Identification of key points:||6||6|
|Comments:||comments for the first speech
strengths: good volume and speed/rate of speaking
places to improve: the speech would benefit from more outside research and citations. there are some words in the topic that I do not hear in your speech. for example, how will the United Nation be involved? In the speech you say an option is for the US police should be defunded. The topic asks you to think about uniform criminal justice reform among multiple countries. Are you saying all developed nations ought to defund their police? you've also said it would be good to increase criminal sentencing. would that be a good idea for the UN to encourage multiple countries to do? how might it work?
comments for the second speech
strengths: good vocal variety, organization, numbering points
places to improve: address the argument and evidence from the opponent that frequently individuals are sentenced for crimes they did not actually commit. expand on your original proposal from the first speech. you said criminals need bigger punishments and we need to increase criminal sentencing in order to have a deterrent effect. what are the sentences now and what would you increase them to? for example, 10 years for robbery?
comments for the third speech
strengths: good vocal variety, confidence, organization of points
places to improve: does the negative team reading a counterplan mean they lose the debate or just that I should not evaluate their counter proposal against your proposal?
|comments for the first speech
strengths: good volume, vocal variety, use of outside research
places to improve: eye contact. instead of looking up to read from notes, it would be ideal to make eye contact/look into the camera lens. that way, the audience feels like you are making eye contact with them. when you use outside research in the speech, be a little more specific about where the information is from. for example, instead of "a 2014 study" mention who sponsored that study or who the experimenters were. what is the WBF? Who is William R. Kelly? Share a little bit more about the source so that the judge has more context and can understand why these sources are credible.
comments for the second speech
strengths: good vocal variety, good speed/rate of speaking
places to improve: try to references pieces of evidence you previously used to support your points. I am not sure how to evaluate the point that the opponent went over time because I was not told in advance how much time each time is allowed per speech. Maybe it would be helpful to include a citation of the rules where it explains how much time each person is allowed to have for each speech.
The decision is for the Opposition: Teresa Nuckolls
Reason for Decision:
This was a good debate. I enjoyed watching the debate.
At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition were that we should reform criminal justice by increasing criminal sentences. This will deter future criminals from committing crimes because they are afraid of increased sentence times and it will deter criminals from recommitting crimes again after they get out of prison.
The most important points from the opposition team were that prisons are overcrowded and could not handle an influx of new prisoners with extended sentencing times, increasing sentence times is bad because too many people are wrongfully convicted in the first place, and that longer sentences are bad because it is inhumane due to prison conditions and gang violence activity.
I decided to vote for the opposition because the opposition had more reasons to support why increasing sentencing time is bad than the pro had for why increasing sentencing is good. I also thought the opposition team had more outside research to support their claims throughout the debate.
The counterplan was unusual because the counterplan said that forensic science should be reformed in developed countries and that police should wear body cameras. The intention of a counterplan is to solve the proposition case. So it is the opposition's burden to prove that the counterplan of increased forensic science and body cameras would solve the harms of protecting innocent american citizens but also giving true criminals harsh punishments so they won't commit crime again. In the opposition rebuttal/closing the opposition team should have explained more clearly why body cameras protect innocent Americans and why better forensic science would improve figuring out the correct sentence time for those who are truly guilty and/or that body cameras would provide definitive proof about guilt and/or that body cameras would deter the police from lying about what happens at any given crime scene.