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: Jacob Gelman (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Anthony Kang (NEI Education)

Judge: Matt Newhouse (Wood River High School)

Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.

  • Jacob Gelman
    Jacob Gelman
    vs.



    Anthony Kang
    Anthony Kang
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Gelman

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf Christopher Anderegg, M.D., Ph.D.
    Kathy Archibald, B.Sc.
    Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D.
    Murry J. Cohen, M.D.
    Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
    John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC92200/

    http://www.peta.org/

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Animal_testing

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Kang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Gelman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Kang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Gelman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Matt Newhouse

    Category Jacob Gelman Anthony Kang
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 4 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4.5
    Comments: This is the first time I have ever judged or for that matter watched a debate. I enjoyed the debate and felt like you and your opponent engaged in a spirted argument in which you both brought interesting supported points to the your case. The difference between your scores and your opponents lie in the calrity of your speaking versus your opponent. You spoke very rapidily with no announciation or inflextion in the tone or quality of your voice. I also felt like you negelected to emphasize your thesis of specism enough throughout the debate. All those things aside, I still awarded you the victory because your opponent did go over by one second. This is the first time I have ever judged or for that matter watched a debate. I enjoyed the debate and felt like you and your opponent engaged in a spirted argument in which you both brought interesting supported points to the your case. The difference between your scores and your opponents lie in manner in which you delivered your argument. You did an excellent job of using your tone and pace to emphasize critical points. I also felt like your organization of facts and your consistent refocusing of your arguement to your thesis of the three "R" was outstanding and effective. That being said, you did go over by one second in your closing and for that reason and that reason only I must award your opponent the victory.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jacob Gelman

    Reason for Decision:

    The propositions closing statement brought the rules of debate into light. He brought to mt attention the time violation the opposition commited in his closing rubuttal. For that reason and that reason only I must award the proposition the victory.


    1 Comment

    The Proposition speaker, Jacob Gelman of Binghamton University, was highly unethical in his last speech, in which he made the single argument that his opponent must lose for going 31 seconds over time. However, Jacob also went over time by 31 seconds in his very first speech! Unfortunately, the judge did not see through Jacob's hypocrisy by noting Jacob's own time violation but awarded Jacob the win--even though the judge clearly preferred the Opposition competitor. This "win" for Jacob is clearly a loss: a freshman in high school destroyed this college student so decisively throughout the debate that Jacob could not manage to generate a single argument on content in the last speech. Rather, Jacob decided that his only option was to trick the judge into voting against his competitor for going 1 second over the forfeit rule, though his opponent had class enough not to call Jacob out for the exact same time violation earlier. The Opp competitor was confident enough in his own intelligence and arguments to magnanimously overlook Jacob's time violation, while Jacob returned the favor with a cheap-shot argument about time violations, knowing his opponent couldn't respond. So kudos to the Opp for winning this debate in class and content, and shame on Jacob for his do-anything-to-win-however-dirty debating. - Josh Cangelosi on May 2, 2013 at 01:36AM EST

    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