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: Justin Suh (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Teresa Nuckolls (University Middle School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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.

  • Justin Suh
    Justin Suh

    Teresa Nuckolls
    Teresa Nuckolls
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 7, 2020 08:29:02AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 7, 2020 01:43:27PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls



    Posted at July 9, 2020 04:53:46AM EST by Justin Suh



    Here are the citations used throughout the debate.

    Posted at July 9, 2020 12:49:48PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls



    Same sources as last time

    Posted at July 11, 2020 11:29:45AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 19, 2020 06:58:28PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Justin Suh Teresa Nuckolls
    Use of evidence: 4 5.2
    Delivery skill: 5.7 5
    Coherence of arguments: 5.2 5.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 4.1
    Identification of key points: 5 4.9
    Comments: I wish you provided cites in the text box so that way I could know where your sources came from. You have a very good speaking voice and rate of delivery. I like how you start off by defining key terms in the resolution. I wish you provided a specific way that reform would happen. I do really like that you say how the UN should use their criminal justice system to step in when individual nations fail. Again, I wish you had evidence to back up this solvency mechanism. You warrants for backing up your arguments are very good.

    Good job pointing out how a lot of the opp's arguments fuels your impact scenarios. I would make sure you spend more time addressing the opp's CP. I like your obligation arguments but I think you can have more arguments against why excluding underdeveloped nations is problematic. Focusing on US stats is irrelevant to answering the opp's CP. Make sure you spend more time answering the CP directly. Nice work answering the expense argument.
    I like that you start with a counter-plan instead of just saying no. Make sure you tailor your argument only to the subset of the resolution that the proposition is focusing on. I worry that your CP would enable third world countries to be left with unjust systems of criminal justice while the first world gets the benefits of developing a more just criminal system. Your body camera argument seems like a second CP. I don't think having multiple alternatives is generally desirable. You should also spend some time playing more defense against the prop since a bunch of your arguments just flesh out the impacts they're trying to solve for. I would also suggest having a procedural argument based upon the prop's vagueness instead of just providing the solvency mechanisms that the prop can co-opt as their own.

    I think you need to establish the link to your financial cost argument. A lot of the reforms proposed seem to have minimal cost and/or could be paid by the UN or by first world nations. If the underdeveloped nations are already dying from diseases there's no reason why maintaining the SQ will help to solve problems like disease. You also need to weigh your starvation arguments against unjust criminal systems. I like your solvency press on the UN. I wish that was more central to your speech.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Justin Suh

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote that countries should implement CJR across the world. The fact that the UN isn't tackling poverty or diseases now in underdeveloped countries proves that just excluding them from CJR won't solve for those impacts. That means voting for the opp preserves all the problems of the status-quo and doesn't produce a better criminal justice system in the 3rd world. The prop needs to win more of a direct trade-off between the UN pushing for CJR and other initiatives. However, if the trade-off link isn't established there isn't a reason why not to have the UN back (and fund) CJR throughout the world. I like the CP idea, but I think it needs better execution in order to make it more offensive and the prop needs to do a better job on comparing and weighing impacts. Good debate!

    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: