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

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.

  • Minseo Kang
    Minseo Kang
    vs.



    Minseo Shin
    Minseo Shin
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 20, 2020 03:44:39AM EST by Minseo Kang

    Citations

    Show

    Citations

    1. Hook
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RYdItBIuOU

    2. Definition
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
    https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00YppsTqM6jUchd7-ch44ImcNgOxg%3A1594625283159&ei=Aw0MX6ylCYza0gSN2ptY&q=uniformly&oq=uniformly&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgkIABBDEEYQ-QEyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyAggAMgQIABBDMgQIABBDOgcILhAnEJMCOgQIIxAnOggILhDHARCjAjoECC4QJzoFCAAQkQI6BggAEBYQHjoFCCEQoAE6CAghEBYQHRAeUJscWKA3YNePAWgHcAB4AIAB-gGIAcgXkgEGMC4xMS41mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science
    https://www.google.com/search?q=policing&oq=policing&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59l3j69i60l2j69i61l2.1918j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
    https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02DuqNhFPzX-PGvWMEpqTW6CIMIzw%3A1594625397077&ei=dQ0MX8qZBPCSr7wP-rWioAY&q=sentencing+meaning&oq=sentencing+meaning&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIHCAAQFBCHAjIHCAAQFBCHAjICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgcIABCwAxBDOgkIABCwAxAHEB46BAgAEENQqFRY1Vlgh1poAXAAeACAAc0BiAGFA5IBBTAuMS4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiKqN7C2snqAhVwyYsBHfqaCGQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

    3. First Argument
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/world/asia/china-camps-muslims.html
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/09/388992
    https://www.in-the-loop.net.au/10-famous-cases-cracked-forensics/
    https://houstonlawreview.org/article/12197-the-costs-and-benefits-of-forensics
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btyOeHpETf8
    https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2019/07/16/in-south-korea-being-drunk-is-a-legal-defense-for-rape/

    Posted at July 21, 2020 09:03:55PM EST by Minseo Shin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 22, 2020 03:45:28AM EST by Minseo Kang

    Citations

    Show

    Citations

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/09/388992
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52861726
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vksEJR9EPQ8

    Posted at July 24, 2020 01:32:50PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 24, 2020 10:20:35PM EST by Minseo Kang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 26, 2020 04:36:42PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Minseo Kang Minseo Shin
    Use of evidence: 4.8 3
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 4.1
    Identification of key points: 4.7 4.3
    Comments: I would start your speech out with some sort of introduction. It seems like you jump in halfway through the debate. I like that you define your terms early on. I wish you implicated how you would be defending how your plan would be implemented. I would create some clearer delineations between your points. They all sort of blur into each other. Start doing some of your impact framing earlier in the debate. I like how you spend time defending the UN as an actor as well as talking about CJR around the world instead of just focusing on one country.

    Powerful start to your rebuttal speech. I like your approach to answering their individual country argument. I wish you addressed it a bit more like a counterplan instead of just labeling it a counter-factual. Nice work extending your argument and establishing a framework for the round. Nice work answering the feasibility argument.
    I would suggest providing evidence to back up your argument so that way it isn't just your opinion. I like your arguments explaining why the UN isn't the best actor and will be doomed to failure. I wish you weighed the impact of sovereignty versus police brutality and justice. You spend a little too much time going for defense. Make sure you have stronger offense throughout. Why is the prop a bad idea instead of an idea that just might not solve. I would consider making your individual country argument into a more formal counterplan instead of letting me think a vote for you is a ballot for the status-quo.

    You have a good press on the practicality of the prop and are pretty good and proving why the UN will be unlikely to solve their harms. However, you still need to win an argument why not to try. How will the prop make the world worse than the status-quo. Your developing nations argument is close to becoming that piece of offense but you never impact it out as much as you need to. Weigh that impact directly against the need for CJR. I like your vigilante justice argument. You still need to win that it's worse than the current injustice that is happening already.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Minseo Kang

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the prop since the opp is too defensive in his arguments. In each instance, the opp stops short on explaining why the problems they point out is enough to outweigh the prop's harms. It is clear that in the status-quo there are huge amounts of abuse happening. This means that I might as well try to do something since voting for the opp just preserves the SQ. Even if the prop might not have a 100% chance of solving and there might be a loss of some sovereignty and vigilante justice, I don't know why those things are worse than what we currently have. Make sure you do a better job in terms of impact comparison.


    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