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: Minjae Jung (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: David Kim (Colin Powell Elementary School)

Judge: Ian Miller (University of Oklahoma)

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.

  • Minjae Jung
    Minjae Jung
    vs.



    David Kim
    David Kim
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 20, 2020 03:27:45PM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 21, 2020 10:11:04PM EST by David Kim

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 23, 2020 02:46:04AM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 23, 2020 08:30:17PM EST by David Kim

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 24, 2020 02:48:31AM EST by Minjae Jung

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 24, 2020 03:51:50PM EST by Ian Miller

    Category Minjae Jung David Kim
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.4
    Delivery skill: 4.3 4.7
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.4 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4.1 4.5
    Comments: I liked your arguments about bad policing practices in countries that aren't the US. I think it would be persuasive to bring these arguments up in the final speech instead of spending time arguing about contradictions. You should give me a reason why procedural stuff about time limits is a voting issue. If not, I don't really know how to evaluate it.

    You had okay arguments about the cost of reform but you should try to impact them out more. Show why a big economic cost would be bad for people.

    The decision is for the Opposition: David Kim

    Reason for Decision:

    First addressing the time/deadline stuff. I didn't evaluate arguments past the time limit. I would have voted just on the late submission argument if you had argued that it was unfair or made it difficult for you to debate. However, it was only framed as something for me to consider.

    The pandemic argument wasn't persuasive to me. Both sides engage with other countries in a pandemic. Some differentiation should have been made besides arguing that it "was a contradiction".

    I think that your argument about other countries having bad policing practices (like North Korea) was more persuasive. However, it was not brought up in the final speech and thus, I did not evaluate it.

    Given that the pandemic argument was a wash and that the policing argument was not brought up, the only advantage left is the argument about money being saved with the opposition's counterplan. Thus, I voted for the opposition.


    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