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: David Jen (The Wilberforce School) vs. Opposition: Minseo Kang (Gwiin Middle School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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.

  • David Jen
    David Jen

    Minseo Kang
    Minseo Kang
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 13, 2020 09:31:54PM EST by David Jen



    Washington Post
    New York Times
    Syrian Network for Human Rights
    Brazillian Forum of Public Safety
    UN Human Rights Watch
    Fatal Encounters
    US Sentencing Commission
    National Criminal Justice Reference Service

    Posted at July 14, 2020 01:19:15AM EST by Minseo Kang




    1. First Argument,any%20other%20power%20or%20state.

    2. Second Argument

    Posted at July 15, 2020 11:24:40PM EST by David Jen



    Merriam Webster Dictionary

    Posted at July 16, 2020 05:05:42AM EST by Minseo Kang




    Posted at July 17, 2020 11:54:23AM EST by David Jen



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 19, 2020 05:21:21PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category David Jen Minseo Kang
    Use of evidence: 4.4 4.8
    Delivery skill: 5 4.9
    Coherence of arguments: 4.7 5.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5
    Identification of key points: 4.1 4.9
    Comments: Good arguments and ideas for reform. I would suggest focusing on one of the subsets instead of trying to do them all. It would allow you to get into more depth while narrowing down what you actually need to defend so it's harder for your opponent to before your argument. I'd also suggest providing the article title or links to your sources in the text box instead of just the source so that way we can track it down and look at what it says in its full context.

    Nice job arguing that your plan wouldn't violate other countries culture. However I don't think your argument that the UN is the individual countries is a good one since the UN implements recommendations that lots of the individual member states are against. I think top-down vs bottom-up is a good debate to have and one that makes sense. I also think you could do a better job impacting out your offense against your opponent's instead of just trying to no link your opponent's arguments.
    I like your arguments about sovereignty and how the UN isn't the right actor. I would have made a more formal counterplan to have individual states implement the reforms. Good use of evidence and dividing your arguments up in a clear way that makes sense. I would have looked to see you pic out of one of the prop's contentions so the could have narrowed the debate down. I also would have liked to see some more direct responses instead of just framing a different impact as being more important.

    Nice speech. You answer the necessary arguments against your contentions and leverage your first speech well. You also do a good job at staying what the prop's burdens should be to win the debate. I wish you impacted out your sovereignty argument more so that way you had more offense in your last speech than you do.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Minseo Kang

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition wins that the UN acting will force a uniform system on all countries, which violates sovereignty. I don't buy the no link argument by the prop since not all countries would want the same legal reforms implemented. However, that being said, the prop could have better extended their impacts on why these reforms are needed to outweigh the pop's sovereignty impacts. However the closing prop speech doesn't do this so I'm not left with much of a reason to go for the prop unless I extend those arguments for you. Be more offensive in your last speech instead of being primarily defensive. The opp also wins that it is unlikely for the UN to have much solvency so the risk of trampling sovereignty doesn't seem with it. Overall, good debate by both sides. More framing at the end could have swayed my ballot in the other direction.

    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: