Judge: Ian Miller (University of Oklahoma)
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 July 7, 2020 12:50:55AM EST by Lydia Liang
my dad and mom gave me some advise answered some questions.
Posted at July 9, 2020 12:30:55AM EST by Lydia Liang
a little help from my parents on how to present better
Posted at July 10, 2020 09:31:38PM EST by Lydia Liang
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 11, 2020 01:28:40PM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Lydia Liang||Minjae Jung|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.2||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.6||4.6|
|Identification of key points:||4.2||4.4|
|Comments:||You had great final speeches - but they were a little disconnected from your constructive.
You were getting at this, but I would try arguing the resolution says "should" not "would" which means that even if criminal justice reform isn't feasible, we "should" still do it because it is morally right/ethical.
|Good points. You were right to point out the discrepancy between your opponent's speeches. However, I would spend more time arguing why criminal justice reform would actively make things worse instead of why it may be infeasible.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Minjae Jung
Reason for Decision:
This was a good and very close debate. I ended up voting for the opposition because they win that countries would not have an incentive to cooperate, making meaningful reform impossible.
I think that the proposition did kind of shift their position past their constructive. The constructive argued that countries should have the same laws for punishing criminals. This was the link to the opposition's arguments about countries refusing to buy in (an example given was honor killings.)
This would have been a different decision if the proposition had argued their forensic science policy from the start. I think that the idea that countries should at least have access to know who criminals are makes a lot of sense to me and doesn't link in to these differences in punishment argument. However, since the proposition argued for uniform punishment in the constructive, I have to give the opposition's arguments some weight, winning them the round.