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.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at July 13, 2020 10:30:04PM EST by Ava Angeles
United Nations official website: https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
Race and ethnicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
Posted at July 16, 2020 01:30:36AM EST by Ava Angeles
International organizations are helping out with the pandemic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/04/how-international-organizations-are-stepping-up-respond-pandemic/
International Monetary Fund: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund
Posted at July 18, 2020 01:57:44AM EST by Ava Angeles
United Nations Covid-19 Response: https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/response
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 19, 2020 04:48:02PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Ava Angeles||Simon Amor|
|Use of evidence:||5.2||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||4.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||3.9|
|Identification of key points:||4.2||4|
|Comments:||Good use of evidence both in your speech and in the text box. I think you could improve if you specify how the reforms should be implemented. I think your speech is a little too US-centric given the international nature of the topic. But I think you do a good job in your opening speech in establishing the need for reform and why the UN is a good actor to do so.
Good responses to the covid argument whole extending your own impacts. I would suggest pointing out how your opponent conceded the arguments made in your opening speech. Good job continuing to use evidence to make your points and framing the debate over what you think the most important impacts are.
|You have a good argument in how the UN should focus on other issues. You need to make sure you use all your speech time though or you give your opponent a big advantage over you since they have three speeches to your two. You should also provide evidence for your arguments and do a better job at answering the arguments your opponent is making in your remaining time.
Again, use all your speech time. You had like four minutes left. You need to do more answering if you're opponent's main points instead of just extending your own. I like how you compare number of deaths but you need to do more in explaining why the UN can't focus on both issues at the same time.
The decision is for the Proposition: Ava Angeles
Reason for Decision:
The prop wins that the UN can focus on more than one thing at a time so it can use different agencies within it to focus on covid and police reform. The prop also wins that we shouldn't use a utilitarian logic (raw numbers) to determine our actions but rather we should institute reforms that can help prevent unnecessary deaths. I wish the prop extended the racism arguments a bit more while making this point, but given that the opp doesn't answer any of the arguments about police brutality I give them their full weight, which becomes a reason to vote for the prop especially when it doesn't trade off with other UN initiatives.