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: Taehoon Kim (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Emma Yamashita (American School In Japan)

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.

  • Taehoon Kim
    Taehoon Kim
    vs.



    Emma Yamashita
    Emma Yamashita
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 7, 2020 04:28:17AM EST by Taehoon Kim

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/long-term-sentences-time-reconsider-scale-punishment/

    https://www.innocenceproject.org/forensic-science-problems-and-solutions/

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/25/forensic-science-failures-putting-justice-at-risk-says-regulator

    https://www.businessinsider.com/norways-prisons-are-better-than-the-american-prisons-2018-6

    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/prison-reform-and-alternatives-to-imprisonment.html

    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/05/26/shorter-sentences-shrinking-prisons

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

    Posted at July 8, 2020 03:32:29AM EST by Emma Yamashita

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.imom.com/home-alone-rules-state/#.XwV2SpMzbJ9

    Posted at July 9, 2020 04:43:07AM EST by Taehoon Kim

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/long-term-sentences-time-reconsider-scale-punishment/

    https://www.innocenceproject.org/forensic-science-problems-and-solutions/

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/25/forensic-science-failures-putting-justice-at-risk-says-regulator

    https://www.businessinsider.com/norways-prisons-are-better-than-the-american-prisons-2018-6

    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/prison-reform-and-alternatives-to-imprisonment.html

    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/05/26/shorter-sentences-shrinking-prisons

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

    Posted at July 10, 2020 03:40:17AM EST by Emma Yamashita

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/can-i-leave-my-children-alone-home-after-school#:~:text=The%20Illinois%20Criminal%20Code%20also,the%20age%20of%2013%20alone.

    Posted at July 11, 2020 04:45:34AM EST by Taehoon Kim

    Citations

    Show

    same as before

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 17, 2020 11:44:17PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Taehoon Kim Emma Yamashita
    Use of evidence: 4.7 4.3
    Delivery skill: 5 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.9 3.7
    Identification of key points: 4.9 4.1
    Comments: Nice job specifying what you're defending as well as providing definitions to back up your interpretation of the resolution. I also really like your use of evidence and providing citations in the text box. Good work framing what you need to prove to win the debate round. I think you could probably divide your speech up better by labeling different contentions. Some of your arguments bleed into one another. I would also suggest using examples beyond just the US since it needs to be enacted globally.

    Nice work responding to each of the four reasons the opposition gives while being clear about what you're answering. I also like that you reference your evidence when answering your opponent's arguments. You also do a good job at extending your arguments from your first speech. I would emphasize a bit more how these arguments went dropped and point out that I shouldn't allow for new arguments in your opponent's next speech.
    You really need to use all your speech time. You only have 2 speeches to the prop's 3 so your advantage is having more time in each of your speech. When you don't you give your opponent a major advantage. I'd also suggest doing more than just listing off your four reasons. Do more to answer your opponent's arguments in your speech as well. I like your arguments, but you need to do more to respond to the arguments the proposition is making and/or comparing the two impacts and explaining why your impacts outweigh.

    Again, use all your speech time. You use less than 50% of your time. I like that you get around to proposing an alternative. I wish it was in your first speech instead of your second. You also do a good job responding to your opponent in this speech. You could do a better job in relation to impact framing and explaining why you win the round.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Taehoon Kim

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the proposition because they win that the UN will be more likely to promote reform since it is unlikely that individual countries will implement reform themselves. The opposition needs to explain why respecting culture rights is more important that unjust sentencing procedures that continues a legacy of racism. The culture that the opposition says the prop will trample on aren't forms of culture that I think we should preserve, which is why the UN intervening would be desirable.


    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT