Judge: María Odériz (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
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 09:51:26PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at July 10, 2020 10:57:54AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at July 11, 2020 03:57:30AM EST by Minjae Jung
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 12, 2020 05:59:14AM EST by María Odériz
|Category||Minjae Jung||Sam L|
|Use of evidence:||4||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.2|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||5|
|Identification of key points:||5||4|
|Comments:||Good debate! Thank you for your speeches, I wrote a pdf file with individual feedback and tips that I recommend you to look at:
|Well done! Thank you for your speeches, I wrote a pdf file with individual feedback and tips for you to look at:
The decision is for the Proposition: Minjae Jung
Reason for Decision:
First of all, thank you for your time and speeches. You both did a great job and I enjoyed listening to you.
A general warning to both of you is to be careful with the timing!! Opposition posted their second speech some hours late which can create problems for other debaters. Please be respectful of the timing as it shows appreciation to other's time and effort. Secondly and along the same lines, proposition went over their time more than 30 seconds in one of their speeches. This, if the judge considers it as an unfair advantage, is enough to give the victory to the other team. In this case, I do not believe it was an unfair advantage as it was not spent adding any new information and failed to rebut the last argument made by opp. Nevertheless, I will only be taking into account the arguments made by prop and opp outside of overtime for the call (although I have given individual feedback in the pdf file).
Once said that let's go to the fun part! First of all congratulations Minjae Jung, the victory goes to the proposition! Now I will quickly explain why.
Opp presents a case with 2 main arguments: 1) countries will not agree and 2) there might be an uneven burden in "developed nations". There is a lack of some mechanism to prove the second point. And for the first point the main justification of opp is that due to different cultures and values one size cannot fit all. It is true but this happens in all topics of the international arena. Why would this reform in particular fail?
Prop provides a model that is not challenged on how the reform would take place and contextualizes it within the UN humanitarian trend of the last decades and defense of human rights. This is not challenged. Furthermore, the importance of discourse and awareness is highlighted which is also not engaged with.
Therefore we have at the end a proposal that would solve inequalities or, if not, spread awareness of them vs the idea that it would cost a lot of money to some countries -and this would be unfair- and that diversity of opinion would make it more difficult to reach an agreement. Forensic science dances around going at the end to opp but still has an impact that is lower than the one prop proved. So, the win goes to prop.
Still, congratulations to both of you! Great debate👏👏! If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me for tips, more feedback or if you are not happy with the call.