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: Megan Durkin (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Aaron Robinson (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Megan Durkin
    Megan Durkin
    vs.



    Aaron Robinson
    Aaron Robinson
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Megan Durkin

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.binghamton.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?

    http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.binghamton.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?

    Dr. Michele L. Ybarra and Kimberly J. Mitchell. CyberPsychology & Behavior. October 2005, 8(5): 473-486. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.473.

    Flood, M. (2009), The harms of pornography exposure among children and young people. Child Abuse Rev., 18: 384400. doi: 10.1002/car.1092

    Posted at October 22, 2013 12:49:57AM EST by Aaron Robinson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 29, 2013 01:51:35AM EST by Megan Durkin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 5, 2013 01:35:14AM EST by Aaron Robinson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 11, 2013 10:44:24PM EST by Megan Durkin

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442092/FBI-shut-drug-trafficking-website-Silk-Road.html

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 14, 2013 06:44:14PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Megan Durkin Aaron Robinson
    Use of evidence: 4.5 3.6
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.6
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.8 4
    Identification of key points: 4.5 4.3
    Comments: You should start your first speech with a clearer statement on what exactly you're advocating for. Ie how are you going to heavily regulate versus just going into internet porn bad. You get to it in the later portion of your first speech. I'd emphasize it more still and place it at the center right out of the gate. Speak a little louder.

    Good answers to the procedural argument. However, you should do more explaining what you did was good and beneficial for education instead of just saying that it wasn't unfair or bad for education. Why is the perm more desirable than the CP alone? Why is the CP bad / why doesn't it solve for the affirmative?
    Good speaking voice. You should provide cites within the available box to do so. I like your procedural argument since it wasn't clearly outlined in the first speech. However, you probably spend too much time in this argument in your first speech. Make a greater diversity of arguments. I would have liked to see more time outlining and defending your counter-plan.

    What would be better than the FBI? How does your CP solve it better? Also you should have cites for the FBI wouldn't have the authority to solve for it. "She says the CP wasn't effective but I'm here to say it is effective" is not an argument. Why? Answer the arguments about how it wouldn't be deficit spending and why your funding source is better. Also, you need to answer the perm (that we can do both).

    The decision is for the Proposition: Megan Durkin

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the proposition because the FBI does have the authority to shutdown websites based upon the arguments and evidence in the round; whereas the opposition just asserts that the FBI doesn't have evidence or proof of this. In regards to the CP I don't know why the proposition's plan couldn't be funded through the mechanism provided by the CP, which was the proposition's permutation argument that goes unanswered. With a CP you need to prove it's an opportunity cost to the proposition's plan and that they're not desirable to be done at the same time. I think overall the opposition should have spent more time fleshing out the CP and less time on the procedural argument, especially in their rebuttal/closing speech. Also having warrants and/or evidence to back up solvency attacks would be quite helpful in instances like this.


    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