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 Oh (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Lydia Liang (Unaffiliated)

Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)

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 Oh
    Justin Oh

    Lydia Liang
    Lydia Liang
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 7, 2020 03:07:38AM EST by Justin Oh


    Show (this source is about the U.N’s purpose
    (this source lists some of the toughest drug policies) (this source is about Portugal’s drug policies) (the basic purpose of sentencing) (statistic costs for forensic analysis)

    Posted at July 8, 2020 01:58:11AM EST by Lydia Liang



    mom/dad advice and support

    Posted at July 9, 2020 03:13:13AM EST by Justin Oh



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 10, 2020 01:07:38AM EST by Lydia Liang


    Show for timing.

    Posted at July 11, 2020 02:15:44AM EST by Justin Oh




    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 11, 2020 12:59:03PM EST by becca steiner

    Category Justin Oh Lydia Liang
    Use of evidence: 4.9 3.1
    Delivery skill: 6 6
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.8 4.6
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: for the first speech:
    : good volume, good speed/rate of speaking, good overall vocal variety, good use of outside research
    areas to improve: since the speeches are so short, you might choose only one of the areas (policing, sentencing, or forensic science) instead of discussing all 3. when you mention the guardian sources of information, include the publish year so the judge knows how recent your information is.

    comments for the second speech
    : good volume, good eye contact, good organization of points and refuting arguments in the order opponent made their arguments
    areas to improve: in this speech you did not have enough time to develop your points about policing, you only had time to reiterate points about sentencing and forensic science. what happened to the parts from your first speech about how police unions are too powerful and police brutality is racist and in need of reform?

    comments for the third speech
    good speed/rate of speaking, good vocal variety, good volume
    areas to improve: in this speech you barely had time to mention forensic science and only were able to focus on sentencing reform. this helps support my advice for the first speech to narrow down to affirm the resolution in only 1 area from the beginning. the last speech would benefit from more explanation of why the UN needs to be involved in the criminal justice reform.
    comments for the first speech
    good vocal variety, good volume, good enthusiasm
    areas to improve: the speech would benefit from sources of outside research and citations from newspapers, books, or journals to support your points.

    comments for the second speech
    : good confidence, good use of rhetorical questions, good volume, good vocal variety
    areas to improve: sometimes when you were swinging side to side in the chair it was distracting for the audience. it might be better to sit still and use hand gestures. or you could give the speech standing if you want to use body movement. the speech would benefit from outside research to help support your points. instead of focusing so much on the cheek kissing example, it might be better to use examples related to how people are punished/sentenced for crimes and the role forensic science plays in trials in various countries. I agree with you that what is considered justice might change from country to country, so might their punishments. so it would be better to use examples that would show it would be tough to convince judges in many countries to enact criminal justice reform for sentencing if one country believes strongly in the use of the death penalty, something your opponent said he wanted to abolish in the first speech.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Justin Oh

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good debate
    I enjoyed watching the debate.

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition were that there is an urgent need for sentencing reform now because many people are in jail for crimes they didn't commit or crimes that should not require as long a sentence as they were punished for. they might be likely to not re-commit the crime again if they instead had shorter sentences and/or more rehabilitation.

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the opposition were that what is considered justice and good punishment changes from culture to culture and rehabilitation is too difficult to enforce.

    I decided to vote for the proposition team because their case included more research and support for their points. Both teams agree that rehabilitation was a good thing. The opposition needed better support - research or reasoning - to cast doubt on why rehabilitation would not be achievable in most countries even with the help of the UN and why many countries lowering sentences for non violent crimes would be unachievable or a bad idea.

    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: