Judge: Jeremiah Sekyi (Unaffiliated)
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 30, 2020 03:25:34AM EST by Taehoon Kim
Posted at June 30, 2020 10:35:59PM EST by Saanvi Kumar
Posted at July 3, 2020 12:17:31AM EST by Saanvi Kumar
Same Sources as Opposition Constructive
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 4, 2020 12:59:04PM EST by Jeremiah Sekyi
|Category||Taehoon Kim||Saanvi Kumar|
|Use of evidence:||4||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.6||5|
|Identification of key points:||5||4.5|
|Comments:||The speech was well-structured and showed an appreciation of the most relevant issues in the debate. The speaker should have however paid more attention to the keywords in the motion and should have included more evidence.||The speaker delivers a great speech with excellent examples and good arguments. What was missing was structure and perhaps more argumentation on the most relevant issues beyond mere responses.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Taehoon Kim
Reason for Decision:
I judged the debate on three clashes, namely
1. The role of the United Nations in this issue.
2. The necessity of an intervention.
3. Efficacy and consequences
On the first clash, we get cogent argumentation from the Proposition team on why the UN should safeguard human rights which are undermined by police brutality. The counterargument from Opposition is that the UN should rather promote peace among nations. The former is superior because aside that the argument is better analysed, the Opposition does not show why this move will disintegrate peace and why that would be worse than the status quo that Proposition paints of global unrest.
On the second clash, Proposition paints a clear picture of a dire need for criminal justice reform and added strategic analysis on why individual countries have failed to engage the issue. Opposition's response is that individual countries are different and should be allowed to engage the issue separately, while the UN focuses on more important issues. Opposition's case did not appreciate the severity of the problem and could not show why the UN could not handle this and the pandemic simultaneously.
On the third clash, the Opposition gives strong reasons why the intervention may fail and will perhaps force some countries to leave. The Proposition does not sufficiently prove why they will succeed against the rebuttals of the Opposition and hence the Opposition takes this clash.
While this clash was important, weighing it against the other two wins of Proposition as well as difference in speech structure resulted in Proposition retaining the win.
Speakers can contact me for more feedback at firstname.lastname@example.org