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: Arthur Park (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Minseo Kang (Gwiin Middle School)

Judge: David Kane (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.

  • Arthur Park
    Arthur Park

    Minseo Kang
    Minseo Kang
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 21, 2020 12:33:55AM EST by Arthur Park



    Posted at July 21, 2020 06:46:04AM EST by Minseo Kang




    1. Rebuttal

    2. Clarifications

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

    4. Second Argument

    Posted at July 23, 2020 03:40:33AM EST by Arthur Park



    Posted at July 23, 2020 08:31:04AM EST by Minseo Kang




    Posted at July 24, 2020 09:34:22AM EST by Arthur Park





    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 24, 2020 09:25:36PM EST by David Kane

    Category Arthur Park Minseo Kang
    Use of evidence: 2.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3
    Identification of key points: 3 3.5
    Comments: You did a much better job of finding an appropriate tone with which to engage your opponent in this debate.

    Don't ask the judge to look up evidence. Cite the information you think is important.
    You did a good job of critiquing the structure of the UN. However, your argument might have been stronger if you had taken in another step. Point out areas where the UN has had difficulty getting agreements in other areas, etc. Especially considering the vagueness of the proposition plan (countries would agree to something ) What could these divergent countries even agree to?

    The decision is for the Opposition: Minseo Kang

    Reason for Decision:

    Thank you for the debate.

    The proposition established a criteria of effectiveness. The opposition argued that the UN lacked the resources to do the job, and compared them to that of a single (admittedly large) city. The proposition then invited the judge to look up the evidence in the first rebuttal. Then in the second rebuttal ignored the question of evidence and tried to explain away that problem by suggesting some sort of agreement would take place. So on this point, whether the UN would have the resources to effectively enact reform, the opposition gets the point.

    The second major point of contention was whether the UN was capable of a just reform decision that would be appropriate to the topic. The opposition argued that reforms would be slanted because the opposition argued that the security council is where the power is, and the general assembly was more of a symbolic institution. The proposition's argument in the closing constructive seemed to support the opposition's more limited view of the general assembly when the proposition said the general assembly's role per the UN charter was to "discuss, debate and make recommendations."

    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: