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.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at June 29, 2020 05:03:15AM EST by JENNY LEE
Posted at June 30, 2020 12:11:19AM EST by Haley Blackman
Posted at July 1, 2020 03:20:24AM EST by JENNY LEE
Posted at July 2, 2020 12:15:46AM EST by Haley Blackman
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 3, 2020 10:25:10AM EST by Eric Kazadi
|Category||JENNY LEE||Haley Blackman|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||3|
|Identification of key points:||6||5|
|Comments:||Good case overall, I think you need to work on making the harms of police brutality more explicit and show more impacts in the debate and also giving clear analysis of what the reforms you suggest will be for example, the reform could be removing live ammunition from police guns, not having police officials respond to mental health related incidents etc - from you speeches I don't know what specific reforms you are advocating for.
Also when pointing out that the opponent did not genuinely engage with your case, don't just focus on reiterating your points but instead show why the lack of response from your opponent is damaging to their case.
Lastly, I think you can improve your own responses by showing how somethings are irrelevant in the debate - for example, opposition argues that this is an expensive policy and the UN cannot afford to pay the countries to enact this. This argument is flawed because there is no reason to believe that the UN will have to fund the implementation of these, but rather it is a directive that tells countries what policies to enact in their legislature which can be paid for internally.
|Good speaking and delivery of your contentions and I also think you are better structured within the speech.
However, my concern is that your engagement is not always genuine - for example, I think it is uncharitable to dismiss the propositions argument by saying they did not provide enough examples, its just 3 countries. Rather, you need to engage with the logic behind the examples used and try show why that is flawed/irrelevant/not damaging to your case etc.
I also think you to do more analytical work to justify some of the claims you make - I am unsure why this is an expensive policy which the UN cannot undertake. The resolution speaks of the UN directing countries to reform their criminal justice systems - this means things such as changing legislature which is unlikely to be so exorbitantly expensive but also the UN is not funding this - like you say, countries have budgets so it is merely the UN telling countries what to prioritse and what to spend the money in their criminal justie budget on.
The decision is for the Proposition: JENNY LEE
Reason for Decision:
I think there are 2 broad clashes - the first is whether or not the UN is the right body to enact this policy (legitimacy) and the second is whether or not the UN has the capacity to enact this resolution (efficacy).
In terms of legitimacy:
Proposition argues the following - the UN is a global body which has the ability to enact political and financial pressure to force compliance within member states and therefore they can act to do this and reduce police brutality worldwide and that a system where different countries can operate based on their own sets of laws is harmful therefore a global standard is required.
Oppositions main argument here is that this policy is beyond the jurisdiction of the UN because it only intervenes in large scale issues and not structural racism and secondly that there are countries where police brutality isn't an issue such as Scandinavian countries.
In weighing this clash, the proposition is more persuasive because they show that the police brutality is widespread thus meeting the criteria of the opposition that it has to be a large problem but also this criterion was contradicted within the opposition case because things like genocide where opposition argues the UN can intervene are also not global issues but within the confines of borders and are structural things which the national governments should solve by themselves. Thus, I am persuaded that the UN is the body to enact this policy.
Secondly, the efficacy clash was largely an opposition push where they argued that the money will be insufficient but also wasted if spent on countries where police brutality isn't an issue. In adjudicating this, I firstly doubt that this is important because the resolution is about the UN forcing countries to adopt certain legislature as a form of reform so I'm unclear why this is so expensive in the first place but also why it needs to be funded by the UN instead of it just being a re-prioritisation of state's pre-existing criminal justice budgets. This is not a situation of giving aid for example which is costly.
Nevertheless, the proposition sufficiently counters this by pointing out that there are multiple departments within the UN which can fund this if need be, and even if it's taking from the GDP's of wealthier countries, then that's an okay policy to do because they can afford it. In terms of countries where police brutality is not an issue then the logic follows that they just won't need the money because they don't need to reform or only need to do so to a smaller extent so that harm on the opposition also does not stand.
Because I believe the proposition wins the 2 major clashes of the debate, I award the debate to JENNY LEE.