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: Richard Correa (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Haley Heerdt (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Richard Correa
    Richard Correa
    vs.



    Haley Heerdt
    Haley Heerdt
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Richard Correa

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 22, 2013 02:03:50AM EST by Haley Heerdt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 28, 2013 11:12:15PM EST by Richard Correa

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 4, 2013 10:37:51PM EST by Haley Heerdt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 11, 2013 11:58:32PM EST by Richard Correa

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 14, 2013 11:14:32AM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Richard Correa Haley Heerdt
    Use of evidence: 3.8 3.9
    Delivery skill: 3.4 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 3.1 4.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 4
    Identification of key points: 4 3.8
    Comments: You should look at the camera. Government jobs do not decrease deficit spending; creating them is deficit spending. I don't see how public sector jobs are better than private sector jobs without you doing some detailed economic analysis. This is not the kind of debate format in which I'm privy to accept nuclear war impacts, and you can't just say "it could lead to this"; policy debaters always provide detailed internal-link evidence to support this claim. I won't vote down someone for going 7 seconds over, especially when the rules say "The Proposition Constructive should clearly introduce which resolution they are debating at the start of their speech. This should not count against speech time." I'm glad you didn't spend much time on this though, as at least then your opponent will spend more time answering it than you did articulating it. That being said, you should use your full 5 minutes for your Opposition Constructive. Most of your claims until the conclusion are defensive (His plan doesn't solve, it doesn't make things better) instead of offensive (His plan makes things worse). Your offensive points should not be in the conclusion as they are the most important points; in fact, scrap the conclusion / underview, I know how to take notes. I rarely vote on defense alone.

    You extend way too many arguments into your last speech; many of them are not articulated well enough for me to consider them voting issues.

    I think you performed much better on the proposition than the opposition, but believe that small changes can correct this. In the future, you might want to consider running a counter-plan, although in this round I can see why a case turn strategy might be better.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Haley Heerdt

    Reason for Decision:

    I don't vote opposition on the procedural argument regarding going 7 seconds over the time limit for the reasons explained above.

    I do think the proposition committed a major shift in plans; he says "The USFG should technologically prevent minors from elicitly accessing adult pornographic websites utilizing a congressional act known as the ICPA." Even if he said an act "like the ICPA", his description of what this plan would look like in the first speech is nothing like the second prop speech. I don't vote on this as a procedural, though, because without any clearly defined voting issues, this just means I bind him to the plan described in the first speech.

    Also, I'm not going to vote him down for saying a nuclear war impact, even though I can easily discard it. Bad arguments are not inherently voting issues.

    The proposition extends two impacts in his last speech; economic turmoil, and childhood delinquency. As neither team told me which one of these impacts matter more, I have to treat them as equal. I believe the opposition has given a much clearer articulation as to why private sector jobs affect the economy equally or better than public sector jobs would as there's no way hiring more federal employees can reduce deficit spending; that is deficit spending. The proposition also consistently drops that status quo filters are effective, taking out the second impact, but even worse, drops that this gives parents a false sense of security, which encourages them not to purchase the filters that are necessary to prevent viewing by minors, and thus lead to delinquency. I vote on these case turns.

    I didn't have to vote on the topicality argument, so I didn't evaluate it, but although I agree with its thesis, here are some components that the opposition was lacking that are necessary to decisively win topicality debates:

    A. An interpretation: a definition of what is topical under this resolution that excludes what the proposition has done (the violation). Such an interpretation should have a clear bright-line, which means that I can easily tell what is topical and what is not topical. It should also be backed by evidence, especially legal or field-contextual evidence.
    B. Standards: Reasons why the proposition's violation substantively hurts the debate (Ground, Limits, etc).
    C. Voters: Reasons why not meeting these standards have ruined the debate to the point of discarding it. The most common voters are fairness and education. A lack of voters makes it easy for me to overlook the procedural arguments made in this round: the opposition does not give me any reason why the proposition's rule-breaking hurts education more than discarding the round does. I might agree that the plan is not substantial, but that's not an argument I feel comfortable hanging my hat on without an a priori reason to reject the the proposition. The way it was articulated in this round seems like the term "substantial" was framed in such a way that I could have just evaluated it as a solvency takeout and let the debate continue.


    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