Judge: Eric Kazadi (Unaffiliated)
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.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at July 14, 2020 04:46:59AM EST by Taehoon Kim
Posted at July 15, 2020 01:50:51AM EST by Shreeram Saravanan
Posted at July 16, 2020 10:28:09PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at July 17, 2020 02:20:50AM EST by Shreeram Saravanan
Posted at July 18, 2020 12:00:02AM EST by Taehoon Kim
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 19, 2020 03:40:29PM EST by Eric Kazadi
|Category||Taehoon Kim||Shreeram Saravanan|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||2|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||2|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||2.5|
|Identification of key points:||5||2|
|Comments:||Very strong case with proper justifications of the necessity of a uniform policy. Very powerful use of rhetoric and real life examples.||Generally needs to engage more because it is unclear why the reform is unnecessary.
Also be care of potentially offensive argumentation - not sure why it is true that developing world countries have less firearms in fact I think the converse is closer to the truth.
The decision is for the Proposition: Taehoon Kim
Reason for Decision:
I think there are 2 issues.
Firstly, the necessity of the policy and reform. I think the proposition does a lot to problematise the frequency of CJS being overly punitive of minorities because of structural racism and other social ills. the opposition strategy in this clash was not strong because it focused a lot on denying that the problem exists and was also quite problematic in terms of characterizing the developing world as not having gun violence something which is purely asserted or that structural racism does not exist which is very counterintuitive.
In terms of the issue of efficacy, in large part because the premise of the opposition is that an issue does not exist, their engagement here is superficial and focused a lot on asserting that reform is costly but I think the proposition has sufficient pushback and also just analyses bigger impacts in terms of weighing.