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 10:29:40PM EST by ben xu
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
Posted at February 20, 2014 07:48:16PM EST by Taylor Rosen
Posted at February 22, 2014 06:37:07PM EST by Taylor Rosen
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|
|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.