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: ben xu (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Taylor Rosen (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: RESOLVED: Sugary drinks should not be sold in primary and secondary schools.

  • ben xu
    ben xu
    vs.



    Taylor Rosen
    Taylor Rosen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at February 19, 2014 10:29:40PM EST by ben xu

    Citations

    Show

    Trading Nutrition for Education: Nutritional Status and the Sale of Snack Foods in an Eastern Kentucky School
    Deborah L. Crooks
    Medical Anthropology Quarterly , New Series, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jun., 2003) , pp. 182-199
    Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
    Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3655334


    Ludwig, David S. "Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis." Lancet. 357.9255 (2001): 505-508. Print. <http://www.commercialalert.org/candp/lancet.pdf>.

    Cutting out Sugary Drinks for Kids
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/cutting-out-sugary-drinks-for-kids/

    Posted at February 20, 2014 07:48:16PM EST by Taylor Rosen

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/soda-bans-in-schools-dont_n_1082529.html

    Posted at February 21, 2014 10:20:04PM EST by ben xu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at February 22, 2014 06:37:07PM EST by Taylor Rosen

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/08/schools-limit-campus-junk-food-have-lower-obesity-rates

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/soda-bans-in-schools-dont_n_1082529.html

    http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

    Posted at February 23, 2014 05:07:52PM EST by ben xu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at February 26, 2014 10:06:40AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category ben xu Taylor Rosen
    Use of evidence: 3.8 4
    Delivery skill: 3.9 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5.5
    Identification of key points: 4 4.2
    Comments: Try to speak with more energy in your voice versus being so monotone. Good arguments and points in your first speech. However, you need to do a better job at implicating them and fully fleshing them out. Also, a bunch of background noise in the video. Use editing software to eliminate that.

    Don't just rely on "he doesn't provide evidence" provide the evidence that counters their arguments. Also evidence on the question of funding / underfunded schools would be helpful.

    In your second speech you need to go back clearer to the benefits of your plan instead of just going point by point on everything your opponent says. Always keep in mind, why should the judge vote for you / why should you win the debate.

    The first few seconds of your closing speech is without any sound. Watch your video before posting it. Also, using only 1/2 your time in your last speech isn't a great idea.
    Good attacks on your opponent's evidence. However, you should have more evidence of your own that proves that he's wrong. Ie you do a good job of belittling his sources but have very few of your own to defend. Throughout the entirety of your speech you're very defensive. You need more offense / off-case arguments in order to come with a reason for why the ban should not happen. The revenues for schools is your only piece of offensive in your speech.

    Why vote for the opposition? You spend a large percentage of your speech hole poking points the proposition makes instead of focusing on an overarching thesis for why you should win.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Taylor Rosen

    Reason for Decision:

    Both sides need to learn that "he didn't provide any evidence" is not an argument. You need to show why that argument is wrong either through your own evidence or through analytic arguments from your own head.

    The debate was pretty close up until the last proposition speech where almost all of the opposition's arguments were dropped. I ultimately vote that the funding from the deals with beverage companies is essential to giving funds to schools in order to run their programming. I don't have a clear answer from the proposition in the last speech that compares that impact against the harms of the affirmative.


    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