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: Ava Angeles (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Justin Suh (Leaders Academy)

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.

  • Ava Angeles
    Ava Angeles
    vs.



    Justin Suh
    Justin Suh
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 20, 2020 03:02:03PM EST by Ava Angeles

    Citations

    Show

    United Nations' Office of Drugs and Crime: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/prison-reform-and-alternatives-to-imprisonment.html

    Mass Incarceration: https://eji.org/news/mass-incarceration-costs-182-billion-annually/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Bureau%20of%20Justice%20Statistics%2C%20the,paid%20by%20families%20to%20support%20incarcerated%20loved%20ones.

    Posted at July 22, 2020 12:12:34AM EST by Justin Suh

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

    https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/information

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/08/1044681

    https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview


    Posted at July 22, 2020 11:41:02PM EST by Ava Angeles

    Citations

    Show

    United Nations' Charter: https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

    Posted at July 24, 2020 08:09:06AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 25, 2020 12:21:38AM EST by Ava Angeles

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 25, 2020 12:59:32PM EST by becca steiner

    Category Ava Angeles Justin Suh
    Use of evidence: 4.9 4.9
    Delivery skill: 5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 6 6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 4.6
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: comments for the first speech
    strengths
    : good volume, good eye contact, good rate/speed of speaking, good vocal variety, good research, good organization of material
    areas to improve: discuss more examples of when the UN has encouraged sentencing reform or other criminal justice reforms. discuss what countries besides the US might benefit from sentencing reform more.

    comments for the second speech:
    strengths
    : good vocal variety, good enthusiasm, good volume, good eye contact
    areas to improve: it would be helpful to provide more research or examples of past UN reforms that have benefited multiple countries. you should try to address the opponent's claim that countries might say no to UN reforms, and that it is not feasible for the UN to enact reform because they lack enough money. You may want to say the resolution says "should" and focus on the moral obligation of the UN to help and say that is more important the opponent's concerns about feasibility of action.

    comments for the third speech:
    strengths
    : good volume, good conversational speed, good enthusiasm
    areas to improve: in this speech I would focus less on the places where you and your opponent agree (you both agree sentencing reform would be a good idea and you both agree mass incarceration is bad) and more on the areas where you disagree - whether the UN should be the one to take action or whether individual countries should take action to enact sentencing reform. the explanation when you answer the opponent's sovereignty argument with its for the greater good is an interesting point. expand that section of your speech more so you can develop that idea.
    comments for the first speech:
    strengths
    : good eye contact, good hand gestures, good volume, good enthusiasm
    areas to improve: avoid using debate jargon terms such as "fiat" and "solvency." instead of the George Floyd example, you should use an example of a domestic law about sentencing reform. the Floyd example is more related to policing reform, but the opponent's case is about sentencing reform.

    comments for the second speech:
    strengths
    : good volume, good hand gestures, good enthusiasm
    areas to improve: the organization of the speech could be improved. it would be helpful to first address the opponent's arguments the order of the opponent's last speech. this means, the last part of your speech would be addressing the argument related to UN resources/money/feasibility. If you are going to include the information about previous citations before beginning this speech, you should discuss those sources of research during the speech more. which are the most important pieces of evidence? can you compare your research with the opponent's research?

    The decision is for the Opposition: Justin Suh

    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 sentencing reform would be a good idea in many countries, mass incarceration is bad, poverty is bad, and the UN should take action to fix these problems.

    At the end of the debate the most important points from the opposition were that the UN taking action on sentencing reform is a bad idea because it violates countries sovereignty, individual countries could just institute their own reforms instead, and the UN does not have the money or other resources to pull off a successful sentencing reform for many countries.

    I decided to vote for the opposition team because they cast doubt in the ability of the UN to make meaningful progress to change sentencing and fix the problems with mass incarceration. In the last speech, the proposition team would benefit from more direct comparisons between the UN vs. individual countries both attempting to fix the criminal justice system.


    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