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: David Kim (Colin Powell Elementary School) vs. Opposition: Jared Sul (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.

  • David Kim
    David Kim
    vs.



    Jared Sul
    Jared Sul
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 20, 2020 08:33:06PM EST by David Kim

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 21, 2020 03:35:05AM EST by Jared Sul

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 22, 2020 03:58:50PM EST by David Kim

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 23, 2020 09:08:58PM EST by Jared Sul

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at July 24, 2020 09:11:59PM EST by David Kim

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 27, 2020 07:13:41PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category David Kim Jared Sul
    Use of evidence: 4 3.7
    Delivery skill: 4.8 4.4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.4 3.5
    Identification of key points: 4 4.2
    Comments: I would have provided sources in the citation box to back up your points. I would also suggest narrowing down what you're defending so you aren't defending reform in all three areas. I like that you cite sources verbally in your speech at least. Giving it in written form would allow the quality of the source to be a subject of debate. You speak very clearly and make a good argument for why we need criminal justice reform. You should focus a little more on why the solution should be rolled out globally by the UN.

    I would highlight specific arguments that weren't answered instead of just saying that none were answered. Also pay attention to the fact that your opponent is using a counterplan to answer your argument so that they are implementing CJR, just not uniformly. Make sure you nuance your response to take that into consideration. You extend your argument well but need to do a better job at answering your opponent's argument.

    Don't just tell me to "please make note" of something. Tell me what you want me to do with the argument.
    I wish you also provided citations in the text box so I could know where your evidence comes from. I like how you start with points of agreement so you can narrow the debate to what you think is most important. I think you take a bit too long to get to your main pieces of offense. I like your counter-plan that eliminates uniform enactment. I would spend more time developing your net-benefit and why that impact outweighs the places where CJR doesn't get implemented uniformly.

    Watch where you are in relation to your microphone. At some points you're very quiet and at other points you're loud. Make sure you more completely highlight the net-benefit of your counterplan. I think have two alternatives is potentially abusive. I'd suggest picking one or the other.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Jared Sul

    Reason for Decision:

    The prop wins that we need criminal justice reform, but the opp wins that we don't need to have these reforms to be uniformly. I think if the prop warranted out their argument on how these differences will cause war I could be convinced that the uniform implementation would be the better solution. Or the prop could have argued that it needs to be uniform to end brutality around the world, which is more important than preserving cultural differences. Otherwise it seems like the opp gives me an option to implement a bunch of criminal justice reform without needing to make it uniform throughout the world. The prop should spend more time answering that nuance than just repeating your own impact. I like the procedural argument, but you need to explain why I should vote on it (especially since it's in the last speech) versus just not paying attention to anything the opp said past the time limit.


    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