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: Haley Blackman (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Minjae Jung (Leaders Academy)

Judge: Isaac Liu (Liberty 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.

  • Haley Blackman
    Haley Blackman
    vs.



    Minjae Jung
    Minjae Jung
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 13, 2020 11:03:03AM EST by Haley Blackman

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Guidelines_on_the_Role_of_Prosecutors.pdf

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/29/12989428/police-shooting-race-crime

    https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/venezuela

    https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-open-government-index/global-scores-rankings

    Posted at July 14, 2020 04:23:30PM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 15, 2020 11:00:10AM EST by Haley Blackman

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-un-idUSKBN23405F

    https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-open-government-index/global-scores-rankings

    Posted at July 16, 2020 04:11:44PM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 17, 2020 04:56:52PM EST by Haley Blackman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 19, 2020 03:55:37PM EST by Isaac Liu

    Category Haley Blackman Minjae Jung
    Use of evidence: 3.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 6 6
    Coherence of arguments: 5.6 5.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 6 6
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: Use evidence more throughout the debate.

    Prop constructive:
    Good organization.

    Prop rebuttal
    Good, but have an overview up top on your contentions.By overview, I mean why the proposition matters. Twenty seconds on what is happening now, why that is bad, and why UN action can solve. In a weird way, it's too focused on your opponent's speech.

    Prop closing
    Watch the time. Your speech is technically only 2 minutes long.
    Top level:
    You'd saved a minute of time you stopped using the word "judge so much."

    Opp constructive
    Excellent organization, but went too long. I would put the money stuff sooner. Also needs a clear impact to the sovereignty argument.
    Use evidence more throughout the debate.

    Opp rebuttal
    Excellent points, but again, watch the timing. It's 5 minutes for the opp constructive and 4 minutes for the opp rebuttal and closing. I didn't evaluate stuff much after the time.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Minjae Jung

    Reason for Decision:

    Summary:
    Very frustrated, because it was an excellent debate. Delivery and responsiveness to opponents were top notch, pretty much flawless. All the good arguments happened after the time limit though. Posted the time limits below:

    Proposition speaker's opening speech (Monday): 4 minutes
    Opposition speaker's opening speech (Tuesday): 5 minutes
    Proposition speaker's rebuttal (Wednesday): 3 minutes
    Opposition speaker's rebuttal and closing remarks (Thursday): 4 minutes
    Proposition speaker's rebuttal and closing remarks (Friday): 2 minutes

    Barely followed. I evaluated only the arguments that fell within the time limits.

    There was no impact analysis in the final speeches. Top-tier rebutting of opponent's points, but need to know why each argument matters. Why should I give two hoots about sovereignty? Haley started exploring that in the last minute of the prop closing, but alas, it was after the time limit. What again does the proposition do? Even if it is not a specific proposal, how does it resolve the criminal justice issues outlined in the first speech?

    These things were not resolved by the proposition, and thus I had to vote in opposition by presumption. I did not have a clear picture of what impact the proposition resolved in the final speech. I did not have a clear picture of what the opposition resolved in the final speech, other than sovereignty (though I don't know why that is important -- does it save lives?) and budget cuts (which there's no guarantee the prop links to and also is after the time limit).

    So I don't know whether or not the prop does good things (as the opp pointed out, it's a little vague) but I'm also not sure if the "bad" things the opp pointed out within the time limits are actually bad (I know budget costs would be, but what about sovereignty?).

    Based on arguments happening regarding framework within the time limits, I can only assume the prop does nothing with a very minute risk of something bad happening. So I vote in opposition by default.



    Prop constructive:
    Definitions: pretty standard, no comment
    C1: Reform is necessary
    -- it was solid, no comment. Perhaps too much time dedicated to it, as it is very difficult to contest that point
    -- answered well by the opposition
    C2: Reform is possible
    -- not the biggest fan of the specific example used, as the Havana Cuba example is not indicative of the kind of reform asked upon in the first contention
    -- point by opposition on that only being for one specific country is really good
    C3: Legal obligation
    -- More evidence can be used, defining what legal obligation is
    -- Needs a clear impact

    Opp constructive
    C1: Sovereignty
    -- Only impact is "key to international society" -- but not sure why I should care about that. Seems like sovereignty just maintains the status squo.
    C2: Unrealistic
    -- realism doesn't affect a lot of the debate, as so many resolutions are not realistic. As a judge, I pretend they do happen, and then evaluate from there. I buy the argument about high cost though and developed nations pushing back, that is effective. Did not evaluate many of the cost impacts though, as was after time limit.

    AT Prop C1: conceded
    -- smart choice
    AT Prop C2: no solvency shown by one example
    -- good argument
    AT Prop C3: no evidence for legal obligation -- opposite is true b/c of sovereignty
    -- good argument

    Prop Reb
    F/W: no obligation by prop to provide logistics
    -- I buy it. The issue with this argument is that the fewer the logistics, the more arguments the opposition can claim applies to the proposition.
    AT one example: gave more examples
    -- my understanding is that the opp argument is that Havanna Cuba does not show UN solvency. The prop answer was more about how multiple countries needed CJR
    AT sovereignty: UN would be aiding countries
    -- like this arg. Issue is it contradicts with the argument below on funding
    AT cost: no evidence UN would need funds
    -- seems to contradict above arg

    Opp Reb and closing
    F/W: prop is wishy-washy and getting out of links with it + uniformly enact means must violate sovereignty
    -- true. Tell me what to do about it. Vote your opponent down? And why?
    -- I would argue that b/c the prop didn't give a specific policy, we can assume it will cost a lot, violate sovereignty, and be watered down by developed nations
    -- I'll give the link to the sovereignty arg, as I buy the arg about "uniformly enact"
    Ext. sovereignty: will violate, prop gives ex. of Hong Kong which China owns -- that's China's sovereignty
    -- good argument, no impact. Why should I care about sovereignty?
    Ext. UN control, won't pass
    -- again, fiat means it will pass. In debate, we typically assume something happens, even if the likelihood of achieving that is low. For example, we can debate about disarming nuclear weapons even though there isn't political support for that.
    Ext. budget cuts
    -- I love this arg, but it was after the time limit. Super-persuasive part of the debate that was not evaluated due to time
    -- also would go well with the framework argument I made above

    Prop closing
    F/W: no obligation to provide mech
    -- I buy it, but it does make you suscetible to other arguments
    AT cost: 1. no cost to UN reform, only directing 2. can focus budget on multiple aspects b/c seperate allocations
    -- maybe true, but I don't understand how that can resolve CJR issues
    AT sovereignty: gives sovereignty to citizens
    -- Awesome argument that happened after the time limit. I think this is very persuasive and would have won the debate given an overview of the case.

    Acronyms and shorthand guide
    opp -- opposition
    prop -- propostion
    arg -- argument
    F/W -- framework (what burden does prop and opp have)
    C# -- contention #
    AT -- answer to


    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