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: Jordan Knight (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Eseosa Olumhense (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Jordan  Knight
    Jordan Knight
    vs.



    Eseosa Olumhense
    Eseosa Olumhense
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at February 19, 2014 09:31:29PM EST by Jordan Knight

    Citations

    Show

    Sources
    1. http://thrive.preventioninstitute.org/CHI_soda.html
    2. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/20129/1/sp04yo02.pdf
    3. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v016/16.1cawley.html
    (Markets and Childhood Obesity Policy) Written By: John Cawley (Associate Professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University)
    4. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=dlj
    5. http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1107716
    6. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v016/16.landerson.html
    (Childhood Obesity: Trends and Potential Causes) Written By: Patricia M. Anderson (Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College) & Kristin F. Butcher (Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago)

    Posted at February 20, 2014 05:02:18PM EST by Eseosa Olumhense

    Citations

    Show

    Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors?
    Brownson, Ross C ; Boehmer, Tegan K ; Luke, Douglas A Annual review of public health, 2005, Vol.26

    Soft Drinks, Childhood Overweight, and the Role of Nutrition Educators: Let's Base Our Solutions on Reality and Sound Science
    Marr, Liz
    Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 2004, Vol.36(5), pp.258-265

    http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/bmi/pdf/BMI_execsumm.pdf

    Posted at February 21, 2014 09:38:50PM EST by Jordan Knight

    Citations

    Show

    Source

    1. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
    2. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/08/09/study-boston-public-schools-sugary-drink-ban-is-working/
    3. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v016/16.1cawley.html
    (Markets and Childhood Obesity Policy) Written By: John Cawley (Associate Professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University)
    4. http://thrive.preventioninstitute.org/CHI_soda.html

    Posted at February 22, 2014 10:51:48PM EST by Eseosa Olumhense

    Citations

    Show

    Soda Bans in Schools Have Limited Impact: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/soda-bans-in-schools-have-limited-benefit/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

    Study: Boston Public Schools Sugary Drink Ban Is Working: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/08/09/study-boston-public-schools-sugary-drink-ban-is-working/

    Posted at February 23, 2014 12:00:37PM EST by Jordan Knight

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at February 26, 2014 09:47:12AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Jordan Knight Eseosa Olumhense
    Use of evidence: 5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 5.4 5
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 5
    Identification of key points: 4.4 4.7
    Comments: Good speaking voice and argumentative structure. At the end of your first speech you could do a better job of drawing out the terminal impact of your harms. Ie who cares about obesity etc.

    You should define sugary drinks (ie the ban on soda will shift to other sugary drinks argument) so you can show how your ban would eliminate sports drinks etc. You drop the CP in your speech.

    You need to answer the CP since it solves your arguments without having to ban sugary drinks, and has the net-benefit of making students informed consumers. You only address it for a few seconds and not as in-depth as needed.
    I like your argument that banning soda only causes the purchase of other sugary drinks. However, the major issue is that your three objections are all defensive (ie the ban might not work, other things might cause the harms, etc). Instead you need an offensive reason why the plan should not be passed. The CP is the best argument you have in the round.

    Your second speech should lead strongly with the CP and have that as the emphasis since that's the one piece of offense you have in your first speech that is isn't responded to.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Eseosa Olumhense

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the CP since wellness education would be better than just banning sugary drinks in order to solve the problem of obesity. The neg uses the money from sugary drinks in order to fund those education programs. This will enable students to make correct choices than just banning it in schools, which will enable students to continue to consume sugary drinks outside of school. The proposition should have argued that the CP is not mutually exclusive with the plan and that schools can ban sugary drinks AND have wellness education.


    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