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.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at July 20, 2020 01:56:41PM EST by Joshua Jen
The link below contains a doc with all the sources I used to write my case. DISCLAIMER: I didn't use all during my speech.
Posted at July 21, 2020 10:17:18AM EST by Jane Hahn
Posted at July 22, 2020 09:37:49PM EST by Joshua Jen
same as before :)
Posted at July 24, 2020 03:45:09AM EST by Jane Hahn
and same as constructive speech
Posted at July 24, 2020 01:32:30PM EST by Joshua Jen
same as before =D
thanks for this debate! best of luck!
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 24, 2020 02:35:31PM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Joshua Jen||Jane Hahn|
|Use of evidence:||4.4||4.1|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.1||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.1||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.1||4.7|
|Comments:||You were good on the line by line and made sure to address all of your opponents arguments, however I think that it would be persuasive to not start out immediately on the line by line on your last speech. I also think that it would also be a good idea to expand on your points in the rebuttal.||Great speeches. I think that you could perhaps use some more research or evidence to support your arguments in order to make them more persuasive.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Jane Hahn
Reason for Decision:
Good debate! I voted for the opposition.
First, the definition debate went to the opposition. I think that the proposition should spend a bit more time here. I end up agreeing that a uniform enactment would be one that isn't different dependent on the country.
Second, the opposition wins that even if body cameras happen they won't solve the problems the proposition points out. The proposition needs to respond to the specifics of this point instead of making a more generic argument. The examples given of police in Minneapolis having body cameras but still abusing their power are persuasive to me.
Given this and the definition debate, there is a low risk of the proposition solving their harms. Thus, I voted for the opposition arguing for differentiated reform based on need.