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: Minjae Jung (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Ava Angeles (Outschool Online - Intermediate)

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.

  • Minjae Jung
    Minjae Jung
    vs.



    Ava Angeles
    Ava Angeles
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 13, 2020 04:55:47PM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 15, 2020 12:59:28AM EST by Ava Angeles

    Citations

    Show

    International Court of Justice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#:~:text=The%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice%20%28ICJ%29%2C%20sometimes%20called,and%20rulings%20serve%20as%20sources%20of%20international%20law.

    United Nations website: https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/

    Economic Sanctions: https://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/10518-economic-sanctions-as-human-rights-violations-international-law-and-the-right-to-life/

    and

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-economic-sanctions-against-cuba-the-failure-of-a-cruel-and-irrational-policy/7024

    Posted at July 15, 2020 04:23:36PM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 17, 2020 01:42:15AM EST by Ava Angeles

    Citations

    Show

    United Nations' Goals: https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/

    Posted at July 18, 2020 03:15:45AM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 19, 2020 07:21:53PM EST by María Odériz

    Category Minjae Jung Ava Angeles
    Use of evidence: 5 4
    Delivery skill: 5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4.5 4.6
    Comments: You have improved your time management! Well done! Really gripping speeches and coherent arguments. Great hooks!

    Also, and as a judge that has seen you before in debates, I see how you applied some of the arguments and tips from the last debate to this speech in order to improve it. Really really well done. Furthermore, great third burden of proof that you claimed in your first speech as it forces you to compare yourself with your opponent constantly to prove how your case is better.


    PS: And not important at all but I had to point it out, I see that you continue to claim that the US is the most developed nation in the world
    Good references, definitions and examples to argue your case. Well done!

    Great analysis in your speeches, your prove your case with logical arguments and clear language that make it very easy to understand your key points.

    Loved your delivery style, really calm and collected but persuasive. Maybe try reading a little less in some parts but in general it was quite easy to follow.

    You did a great rebuttal and engaged beautifully with prop but your case was not really clear to me until your second speech.

    As a final note, be careful with your speeches, you respected the timing but your first speech was cut off without an ending.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Minjae Jung

    Reason for Decision:

    Hi! Sorry for the late feedback, I was given this round as a second judge after your previous one could not make it. I really enjoyed this debate and I am sorry I cannot give you a more detailed personalized feedback as I usually do due to time constraints.

    Still let me give you a quick overview of the debate.

    Prop sets the debate and provides the mechanisms by which this reform would take place. Then, and based on his contextualised world where injustice is rampant, he explains why the UN must and can intervene: to protect human rights; following the lines of already existing actions; and if the previous does not work, to create a discourse that would empower the oppresed.

    Opp then argues that requiring reform would not be in agreement with the UN claim of providing humanitarian aid and that economic sanctions would, in fact, be against human rights by representing a form of collective punishment. She also claims that the possible positive effects of sanctions is not enough as it is not proven and the risk of antagonising countries with them is greater.

    Prop then claims that the consequences of collective punishment that opp claims will be what motivates citizens of countries that suffer economic fines to call for reform within their country. Furthermore he points out how this would work bc, in contrast with other examples, he claims criminal justice system is not vital for the regime -why?-. And how countries, even if antagonized, will not be able to leave the UN bc of the money it will offer in economic aid being an incentive for people to revolt.

    Opp closes her case by stating that 1) the UN is overstepping and will antagonize countries and 2) fines would not work and would lead to sanctions -proven as bad and not challenged- and call for reform would not happen in authoritarian countries -risky- and will happen anyways in democratic ones -BLM example-.

    Finally prop, states that antagonising dictators is not a bad thing -not explaining why either but nor does opp- and strengthens his case in favour of revolutions.

    So, to sum up, we have a case where prop argues in favour of reform for a greater good against injustices -even if it is with economic fines or suffering of some sort as revolutions have- vs opp case of protecting human rights no matter the positive possibility of paradigm change because it will hurt people in the short term either antagonizing countries and providing worse conditions or by collective punishment. Until then we have a case where I would have had to go in and try to balance out the greater impact (please try to avoid this in future debates, it has to be clear that your case is the winning case). However, there is a big clash with opp saying that reform would not happen with this motion -and if she had proved that the whole case of prop would be invalid- and prop defends his case by providing instances when this had happened and took the case with him. -Still could have developed it a bit more as it was a really close call-. Reconsideration trials moved around but at the end went to opp, still the impact is low when compared with the revolution one.


    CONGRATS TO BOTH OF YOU, I hope this was clear and that it compensates for the individual feedback I did not have time to create.


    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