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: Brian Killelea (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: James Suh (NEI Education)

Judge: Christian Chessman (University of Florida)

Resolution: Resolved: This house believes that being a vegetarian is a better ethical choice than meat eating.

  • Brian Killelea
    Brian Killelea
    vs.



    James Suh
    James Suh
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 7, 2014 07:39:03AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 7, 2014 09:33:19PM EST by James Suh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 9, 2014 04:08:32PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 9, 2014 11:36:00PM EST by James Suh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 08:58:20PM EST by Brian Killelea

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmL3vaaVsNg

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 13, 2014 11:44:57AM EST by Christian Chessman

    Category Brian Killelea James Suh
    Use of evidence: 3 1.4
    Delivery skill: 3.5 2.1
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.4 4
    Identification of key points: 2.6 3.7
    Comments: Your final speech is private. You could have easily won the debate but because the neg got the last word, I am unable to resolve most of the arguments in your favor. Please take care with your technology in the future.

    As a politeness question, don't call your opponent "misleading" or whatever - just refute their args. Otherwise well done - clear answers, used evidence. Four for you Glen Coco.

    Do extend your own arguments though - the second speech was mostly refuting neg arguments (which is great) but also needs to include mention of some of your own. In other words, your speech was a lot of "the neg is wrong" and not enough of "the aff is right". Do both.
    Be cautious of filler language and empty verbage. "Meat is very needed" was said three times in the first speech.

    The decision is for the Opposition: James Suh

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote neg on pesticides. The affirmative wins that I should avoid killing animals and that vitamins solve most of the negative's health arguments.

    The negative wins that higher vegetarianism = higher plant use, including pesticides, in a way that kills animals. This is unresponded in the aff rebuttal, and I don't know if it was mentioned in the closing because the video was private. It would have been easy to vote aff is the aff compared the number of animals saved by vegetarianism (a lot) to the number killed by increased pesticides (likely not a lot) *or* if the aff had made the argument that fewer plants are needed because vegetarianism increases food consumption efficiency (there's an energy loss when animals eat plants, and then humans eat animals. Humans would need a lot fewer plants if they directly ate the plants because there's a 90% energy loss at each consumptive stage).

    Good luck in future rounds!


    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