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: Frank Bastone (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Sumin Hwang (NEI Education)

Judge: A. Marie Houser (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Frank Bastone
    Frank Bastone
    vs.



    Sumin Hwang
    Sumin Hwang
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2013 12:06:19AM EST by Frank Bastone

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.vice.com/read/trayvon-martin-s-shooter-is-free-because-of-the-stand-your-ground-law

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2013/10/11/76860/beyond-stand-your-ground-floridas-other-racial-profiling-practices/

    http://floridastandyourground.org

    http://www.wmfe.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15015&news_iv_ctrl=1041

    Posted at October 22, 2013 01:47:02AM EST by Sumin Hwang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by N/A

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 3, 2013 01:01:14PM EST by Sumin Hwang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 12, 2013 12:38:55AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 16, 2013 01:16:05AM EST by A. Marie Houser

    Category Frank Bastone Sumin Hwang
    Use of evidence: 4 4.5
    Delivery skill: 4 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4 4.5
    Comments: I enjoyed your delivery and presentation. If you can find a way to even out the delivery a bit more -- maintaining the same level of vigor throughout your speeches -- your presentation effectiveness would increase. I would also want to see you address your opposition's points more thoroughly; the technicality argument was, as you said, not substantive -- and so I'd have preferred to see you use your time to talk about the substantive points. But overall, a good job. Very well presented. You made a good, solid, coherent argument. Perhaps work on delivery so that you have more variability in how you deliver your sentences -- different tones and pitches.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Sumin Hwang

    Reason for Decision:

    While I would hope that the proposition debater does improve time management, he is allowed a thirty-second leeway. The bulk of his argument was also a value proposition, even though he did veer into policy by arguing that the law should be repealed. In the end, though, the opposition did address a number of points that the proposition did not respond to, including a counter plan to address problems presented by Stand Your Ground. Though my personal values would lead me to agree with the proposition, in the end the opposition had a more thorough and coherent argument, though both debaters presented good arguments. I congratulate you both for a job well done!


    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