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: Jared Sul (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: David Jen (The Wilberforce School)

Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)

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.

  • Jared Sul
    Jared Sul
    vs.



    David Jen
    David Jen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 19, 2020 09:43:32PM EST by Jared Sul

    Citations

    Show

    I apologize for the background noise.

    Posted at July 21, 2020 11:06:38PM EST by David Jen

    Citations

    Show

    Science Review
    UN Human Rights Watch
    Wall Street Journal
    Brookings Think Tank
    Merriam Webster Dictionary

    Posted at July 22, 2020 06:57:45PM EST by Jared Sul

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 23, 2020 10:19:37PM EST by David Jen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 24, 2020 08:31:10PM EST by Jared Sul

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 25, 2020 12:13:17PM EST by becca steiner

    Category Jared Sul David Jen
    Use of evidence: 3 3.7
    Delivery skill: 4.4 4.4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 4
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: comments for the first speech
    strengths
    : good conversational speed/rate of speaking, good volume, good eye contact, good preview statement in the introduction
    areas to improve: it would be helpful to include citations for any research you used in the citations entry on the website and to share aloud during the speech more research-based arguments. it would be helpful to discuss the 1-3 of the specific areas of criminal justice reform: policing, sentencing, or forensic science more during the speech rather than criminal justice reform overall. and to bring up examples of UN countries that may need policing, sentencing, or forensic reform right now.

    comments for the second speech:
    strengths
    : good volume, good conversational speed, good eye contact
    areas to improve: the speech would benefit from more examples of what common ground countries might be able to find regarding policing, sentencing, or forensic science. the speech would benefit from more comparisons and reasons why the UN is better equipped to enact criminal justice reform in a country than a domestic law instituted by a country's own government.

    comments for the third speech:
    strengths
    : good conversational speed, good eye contact, good volume
    areas to improve: try to address more of the opponent's points from the last speech including that the UN does not have the money needed to do criminal justice reform, that countries will say no, and that the UN enacting policies is disrespectful to other countries' sovereignty.
    comments for the first speech:
    strengths:
    good volume, good eye contact, good organization, good identifying opponent's points before making a response
    areas to improve: include the publish dates and more citation details for your research on the website, when sharing your research sources aloud during the speech also share how recent your information is from. there is no need to say "judge" so much during the speech. at times, there were many pauses during the speech. practicing the first constructive a few times before delivering it on video could be helpful to avoid pausing too much during the speech.

    comments for the second speech
    strengths:
    good volume, good eye contact
    areas to improve: offer research to support your claim that the UN does not have a large budget to enact reforms. no need to say judge so much during the speech. at times, the speech became repetitive. planning and writing more notes in advance of the speech might prevent you covering the same issue twice and repeating yourself.

    The decision is for the Opposition: David Jen

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good debate https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif I enjoyed watching it.

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition were that UN enacted uniform criminal justice reform is a good idea because standardized reform across many countries will help develop more universal human rights.

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the opposition were that the proposition had no examples of a specific criminal justice reform that could be implemented across many countries, the UN enacting reform violates countries sovereignty and rights to institute domestic laws for their own country, countries will say no/not adhere to UN reforms, and the UN does not have enough money to enact substantial reforms.

    I decided to vote for the opposition team because they had more reasons against UN criminal justice reforms than the pro had in favor of UN criminal justice reforms. Overall, I was persuaded that criminal justice reform was important but was not persuaded the UN is the one who should take action.


    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