Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: Sugary drinks should not be sold in primary and secondary schools.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at February 19, 2014 11:35:50PM EST by Byron Ruano
--Fact Sheet on Obesity. World Health Organization. Online at: <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/>
--Obesity in America: What's Driving the Epidemic?
Harvard Men's Health Watch: February 2012. Harvard Health Publications. Online at: <http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/obesity-in-america-whats-driving-the-epidemic-1>
Posted at February 20, 2014 11:40:25PM EST by Christina Pastoressa
Read more: Banning Sugared Drinks in Schools Doesn't Lower Student Consumption | TIME.com http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/08/banning-sugared-drinks-in-schools-doesnt-lower-student-consumption/#ixzz2tvE4wRH3
Posted at February 21, 2014 10:48:20PM EST by Byron Ruano
--Banning Sugared Drinks in Schools Doesn't Lower Student Consumption | TIME.com http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/08/banning-sugared-drinks-in-schools-doesnt-lower-student-consumption/#ixzz2tvE4wRH3
Posted at February 22, 2014 04:45:02PM EST by Christina Pastoressa
None available for this speech.
Posted at February 23, 2014 07:23:58PM EST by Byron Ruano
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at February 26, 2014 10:24:38AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Byron Ruano||Christina Pastoressa|
|Use of evidence:||4||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.7||3.8|
|Comments:||Your intro spends a bunch of time setting up US consumer culture and takes too long to get to the topic itself. Ie who cares if the US is overweight if that obesity isn't attached to sugary drinks in schools. Make sure your arguments are more immediately connected to the topic itself.
When running a procedural argument make sure to have all the components (Interp: All cited sources should be provided as a full cite; Vio: She doesn't; Standards: Seeing opponents citations key to clash and education; Voters: Reject the opposition for hurting the educational value of the debate). Beyond that you need to address the content of her arguments still and not just the form alone.
I'd spend all your time at the end on your offense and not nitpick those points that aren't as relevant. You should conclude with why you win as much as you do why she loses.
|Speak louder and with more energy. You should have a formal CP that does one of the laws you say that could work. That way you can say a vote for the opposition will solve the problem the affirmative fails at solving. "This is what I'm suggesting we do instead" is not necessarily strong enough for it to be a CP. Remember from lecture #1 the components you need within the CP. The way you argue is mostly defensive. Expand on your poison the water argument.
Using only 1 minute of your second speech HORRIBLE since the format of the online tournament means that you need the additional time to make up for the proposition's three speeches. You also need to more clearly identify the offense versus the defense you have in the round. Ie "ineffective" doesn't mean why not try. What's the disadvantage to doing the proposition (your first speech it was poisoning the waters).
The decision is for the Proposition: Byron Ruano
Reason for Decision:
The proposition does a good job answering the opposition's one piece of offense by explaining how it is an unwarranted opinion piece. After that argument is defeated then there is no reason not to stop selling sugary drinks in schools. Even if it isn't doing much good or a full service to students there is no longer any reason why not to try the affirmative.