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: Sameera Velicheti (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: David Jen (The Wilberforce School)

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.

  • Sameera Velicheti
    Sameera Velicheti
    vs.



    David Jen
    David Jen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 13, 2020 10:09:02PM EST by Sameera Velicheti

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 14, 2020 11:48:00PM EST by David Jen

    Citations

    Show

    Portugal Government
    Polish Police Association
    Public Radio International
    Independent Office for Police Conduct
    Japan News Today
    Swedish Department of National Operations
    Brazilian Forum of Public Security
    UN Human Rights
    Philippines National Police
    Fatal Encounters
    Syrian Network for Human Rights
    Council on Foreign Relations.

    Posted at July 15, 2020 10:47:48PM EST by Sameera Velicheti

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 16, 2020 11:52:56PM EST by David Jen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 17, 2020 11:09:57PM EST by Sameera Velicheti

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 18, 2020 06:25:37PM EST by becca steiner

    Category Sameera Velicheti David Jen
    Use of evidence: 3 4
    Delivery skill: 5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 5.8 5.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.5 5.5
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: comments for the first speech:
    strengths:
    good volume, good conversational speed/rate of speaking, good organization of points
    areas to improve: try to look at the camera lens so that when the audience watches it, it looks like you are making eye contact with the audience rather than reading your notes the whole time. it would be helpful to discuss what role the UN ought to play more in the speech and why other countries will follow the UN's requirements. it seems like you used outside research for this speech. please include citations for that on the website and say aloud during the speech where you got your information from.

    comments for the second speech
    strengths
    : good conversational speed, good volume, good purposeful pauses and emphasis of key words in sentences
    places to improve: there are parts of this speech where you did some outside research probably to find those numbers of death rates. include citations on this website for your sources so the opponent has access to see them and also mention aloud in the speech where you got those numbers from. it would be helpful for you to provide some examples of when the UN required countries to do something and countries said yes/the UN was able to enforce its mandates. The opponent said that certain countries would not follow the UN requirements, not just because they can't pay but because they don't want to follow those rules. You could use a better response to that argument.

    comments for the third speech
    strengths
    : good volume, good speed/rate, good eye contact
    places to improve: try to compare your proposal (UN requires countries to enact uniform criminal justice reform) vs. the opponent's alternative of the countries with the highest rates of police brutality institute their own domestic laws to create criminal justice reform in their own country.
    comments for the first speech
    strengths:
    good volume, good eye contact, good use of outside research, good conversational pace/speed of speaking - it did not sound rehearsed which is good. it sounded extemporaneous.
    areas to improve: when verbally citing sources during the speech, include the publish year your evidence/research is from. do you have any thoughts about forensic science reform? the opponent's first speech mentioned the use of DNA for forensic science is helpful for making accurate convictions.

    comments for the second speech:
    strengths:
    good volume, good conversational speed, good identifying opponent's arguments first and then making a response.
    areas to improve: try to reference prior research/evidence you used to support your claims. discuss whether you think it is likely that richer countries such as the US would offer aid to other countries (who cannot afford it on their own) to enact criminal justice reform when the US hasn't even made criminal justice reform in its own country a priority especially during the pandemic.

    The decision is for the Opposition: David Jen

    Reason for Decision:

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

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition were that some countries, such as the US and China, would benefit from criminal justice reform (especially policing reform) to lower crime and police brutality in their countries. Richer countries are in a position to potentially offer loans to other countries to enact criminal justice reform too.

    The most important points from the opposition were that uniform rules for policing reform in many countries is unrealistic because each country has varying police brutality rates and crime rates. Instead, countries should enact their own domestic laws for criminal justice reform rather than the UN requiring countries to implement the same reform at the same time as everyone else. If everyone has to implement the same reform, it might be ineffective and it might be very expensive. Also its not really in the UN's power/authority to require countries to enact policing reform.

    I decided to vote for the opposition because I do not think the proposition had enough reasons why the UN needed to be involved. Why can't the countries who need reform create their own reforms for just their country, that are specific to their country? It would be helpful for the proposition to provide examples and research of when the UN has intervened to require countries to do things to decrease crime, racism, or poverty before and it was successful in multiple countries. This would help establish it is within the authority of the UN to make uniform recommendations and requirements on this topic and that the reforms would be successful in multiple countries.


    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