Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Lydia Liang (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Sam L (Outschool Online - Intermediate)

Judge: Eric Kazadi (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.

  • Lydia Liang
    Lydia Liang

    Sam L
    Sam L
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at June 29, 2020 01:08:33AM EST by Lydia Liang


    Show I didn't use everything on the page. dads help. my dad answered many question.

    Posted at June 30, 2020 09:27:06PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    conversations with a former Manhattan prosecutor and a defense attorney.

    Posted at July 2, 2020 04:22:51PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 3, 2020 09:25:52AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    conversations with a former Manhattan prosecutor and a defense attorney.

    Posted at July 3, 2020 03:49:53PM EST by Lydia Liang



    the last few debates and my own knowledge.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 6, 2020 08:31:10AM EST by Eric Kazadi

    Category Lydia Liang Sam L
    Use of evidence: 3 3.5
    Delivery skill: 4 3
    Coherence of arguments: 2.5 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 3.5
    Identification of key points: 4 3.5
    Comments: Well done on your first debate - hopefully this is the first of many because you're a great speaker and I tons of potential

    I think this debate was close, and the issue is mainly that the examples you used where not always related to the topic so although I understood your intentions, I could not fully credit them.

    I think you had some very strong ideas about universalising the puninshments for crimes and had you spent more time developing this in your speeches and showing the impacts, you could have won the debate
    Solid case, I think the main issue I have is that you exaggerate the language barrier argument because translators etc. exist in the present day. That's why all these countries can have meetings at the UN for example and also as your opponent points out, they can trade with each other also.

    Therefore, I wish you had prioritised the arguments around burdening the developed countries and showing clearer mechanism of how this happens.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Sam L

    Reason for Decision:

    A good, and very close, debate - I think that the opposition edges out proposition by developing the argument about how thejustice systems in different countries are informed by their local contexts and thus, this policy becomes harder to enact which is not directly responded to.

    The stuff around costs, aren't as well developed but still sufficient to weigh against the benefits the proposition posits around a universal understanding of crime which has already been undermined thanks to the first clash.

    Well done to both debaters, I think there's great potential here. In future, just make sure to research broadly about the topic so that arguments are made with real-life illustrations and impacts and in this debate specifically, you would have been able to analyse whether or not the UN is a legitimate actor to enforce such a policy.

    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by: