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: Sandra Vucinic (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Ande Carbonel (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Sandra Vucinic
    Sandra Vucinic
    vs.



    Ande Carbonel
    Ande Carbonel
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2013 11:36:41PM EST by Sandra Vucinic

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 18, 2013 04:44:21PM EST by Ande Carbonel

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 28, 2013 06:14:04PM EST by Sandra Vucinic

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 29, 2013 07:33:23PM EST by Ande Carbonel

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 11, 2013 09:09:49PM EST by Sandra Vucinic

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 13, 2013 01:00:51PM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Sandra Vucinic Ande Carbonel
    Use of evidence: 3.1 3.4
    Delivery skill: 3.8 2.5
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 3.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.4 2.9
    Identification of key points: 4.4 3.6
    Comments: Good organization and presentation. I believe you're able to define that the house is Florida, but think that the opponent can still win that the resolution is false if they show that a world with the Florida Stand your Ground law is better than a world without it, even if you only have an issue with one component of the law. Your opponent didn't make this argument so I don't evaluate it, but you should know that using the president as a source is both 1. Usually an unwarranted appeal to authority, and 2. Easy to attack because he is biased towards his political agenda. Saying things like "Obama himself says..." makes me cringe. You get tangled up in your words a lot, as shown by the beginning of your first speech, which would be incomprehensible if I did not have debate training. You make a lot of good points in your first speech, but only 3 of them end up in the final rebuttal, and only one of those is good. Your topicality argument is not something I can vote on because 1. You only explain what she could have done, not what she had to do, 2. If you won that her definition of the house was unreasonable, all you would have to do is prove that the good done in other states outweighs the bad in Florida, and 3. You never explain why her supposed violation of the rules greatly hurt the fairness and education in this round. Your "More guns, less crime argument" might be a good one, but it needs more impact comparison and framing (more on that in the RFD). Lastly, I don't understand why you went 2 minutes over your first speech's time limit, and then 2 minutes under in your last. This significantly hurt your ability to give the closing speech necessary to win the debate.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Sandra Vucinic

    Reason for Decision:

    I could vote proposition to deter trigger-happy responses to possible threats, as well as give justice to the families that have had victims affected by these responses. I could also vote opposition to deter criminals from causing crimes because they know that they will face a gun if they attempt to do so. No impact comparison or explanation as to how I weigh harms vs. goods makes this round hard to adjudicate. I end up having to give the proposition her argument that she doesn't have to defend that the entirety of Stand your Ground laws are bad, but merely that not having a duty to retreat causes serious harms. The status quo Stand your Ground law in Florida is an opportunity cost with a similar law that would fix this issue, and as such, the law does more harm than good.


    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