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: Jonah Frey (Coleytown Elementary School) vs. Opposition: Sumin Park (Leaders Academy)

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.

  • Jonah Frey
    Jonah Frey
    vs.



    Sumin Park
    Sumin Park
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 6, 2020 03:10:52PM EST by Jonah Frey

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-humes-forensic-evidence-20190113-story.html

    Posted at July 7, 2020 09:21:53PM EST by Sumin Park

    Citations

    Show

    https://providencemag.com/2018/09/failure-un-case-united-nations/

    Posted at July 9, 2020 10:15:55AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Global goal 16; https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-16-peace-justice-and-strong-institutions.html

    Posted at July 11, 2020 11:30:37AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 11, 2020 04:22:23PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-16-peace-justice-and-strong-institutions.html

    https://peacekeeping.un.org/en

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 13, 2020 11:47:10AM EST by becca steiner

    Category Jonah Frey Sumin Park
    Use of evidence: 3 4
    Delivery skill: 4.3 4.4
    Coherence of arguments: 6 6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 4
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: comments for the first speech
    strengths:
    good eye contact, good speed/rate of speaking, good volume
    areas to improve: since the speeches are very short, it might be better to focus on 1 area (policing, sentencing, or forensic science), rather than support reform in all 3 areas. the speech would benefit from more citations and research.

    comments for the second speech
    strengths
    : good confidence, good conversational style, good use of transition words such as "however"and "next."
    areas to improve: sometimes, there were a lot of pauses during the speech. maybe you could rehearse a little bit more in advance so you don't have to pause as much during the speech. in the first speech you talked about policing reform and forensic science too, but in this speech you only talked about sentencing and the death penalty. maybe you could remind the judge you still support the other reforms too. it would be helpful to give some research or explain why you think some/many countries will say yes to the UN.

    comments for the third speech
    This video was private, so I was not able to watch it. https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/sad.gif
    comments for the first speech:
    strengths:
    good vocal variety, good volume, good organization of main points
    areas to improve: the speech would benefit from more citations and research. the speech would benefit from more discussion of why various countries should be allowed to keep the death penalty as a form of punishment if they want to.

    comments for the second speech:
    strengths
    : good volume, good speed/rate of speaking, good "even if" statements that give credit to some of opponents claims but express why you still believe you won.
    areas to improve: there is no need to repeat the motion/prompt again at the beginning of the speech. the judge has the motion available on their screen and both you and the opponent said it in the first speeches. you could improve your eye contact by looking into the camera lens and read from your notes a little bit less.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Sumin Park

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good debate https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif
    I enjoyed watching it https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition were that the death penalty and other current sentencing laws are unfair and criminal justice reform is a good idea. I did not get to see the 3rd speech because the video was listed as private.

    The most important points from the opposition were that countries will refuse to comply with UN criminal justice requirements, UN criminal justice requirements would destroy local culture and autonomy over crime and punishment, and the UN and many countries do not have the money to spend on criminal justice reform (this is a problem since all the UN countries would have to adopt reform, but not all countries can afford it).


    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