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: Sam L (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Justin Oh (Leaders Academy)

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.

  • Sam L
    Sam L
    vs.



    Justin Oh
    Justin Oh
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 7, 2020 08:18:25AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 8, 2020 02:55:17AM EST by Justin Oh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 8, 2020 09:37:33PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    conversations with two attorneys and the United Nations Website

    Posted at July 10, 2020 03:12:37AM EST by Justin Oh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 11, 2020 08:44:13AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 11, 2020 02:01:04PM EST by Ian Miller

    Category Sam L Justin Oh
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.4
    Delivery skill: 4.6 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.4 4.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.6 4.4
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4.3
    Comments: You had good speeches but I found your arguments about forensic science more persuasive than your arguments about bad types of punishment. You had persuasive speeches, but I did not find the link in the proposition's arguments to a US definition of human rights.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Sam L

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good and very close debate. I ended up voting for the proposition because a uniform criminal justice system would reduce the chance that countries go to war to protect human rights.

    The opposition's arguments hinge on a uniform justice system based on Western definitions of human rights. However, I don't think that this assumption can be made automatically. I didn't find a line where the proposition said or implied this. In fact, they argued that the US would have a greater incentive to go to war if there wasn't a uniform way to define justice (this was in their rebuttal).

    I also think that countries may have an incentive to cooperate because of the potential for technology advancement through forensic science and the potential for peace.

    Thus, I voted for the proposition.


    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