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: Kyle Neuenschwander (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Andre Donaldson (Binghamton University)

Judge: John Vermitsky (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Kyle Neuenschwander
    Kyle Neuenschwander
    vs.



    Andre Donaldson
    Andre Donaldson
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2013 01:50:25AM EST by Kyle Neuenschwander

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 21, 2013 10:00:39PM EST by Andre Donaldson

    Citations

    Show

    Resnik, David B. "The morality of human gene patents." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7.1 (1997): 43-61.

    Posted at October 29, 2013 01:59:02AM EST by Kyle Neuenschwander

    Citations

    Show

    Note:
    I previously contacted the tournament director in order to make arrangements to make the opposition's constructive visible. (I can provide a transcript of my email if requested.) However, my request went unanswered. Thus, as the opposition mistakenly posted his speech as a private video, I could not respond to any argumentation within. I regret this, as it makes for a less engaging round. Thank you for your time.

    Posted at November 4, 2013 09:33:44PM EST by Andre Donaldson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 12, 2013 07:53:04AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 14, 2013 10:40:20PM EST by John Vermitsky

    Category Kyle Neuenschwander Andre Donaldson
    Use of evidence: 4 4.3
    Delivery skill: 4.1 4.7
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.1 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4.3
    Comments: good start but how do you deal with the fact that it cures diseases?
    You were very clear and concise. I wanted to see a clearer answer in the end. Instead of "pay close attention" say I'd like you to look at or something like that. "proposition takes ballot" is a bit corny.
    the background music is distracting. If you are doing it for a reason you need to make it clear.
    I really like your style and the way that you handled the snafu regarding uploading.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Kyle Neuenschwander

    Reason for Decision:

    I think that I like the delivery and argumentation on both sides. I actually like the opposition's delivery style a bit more. I think the opposition should have stuck with their position on patents being necessary for capitalist increases in medical research and that the WHO could do it better. The proponent does a good job in framing the issue as a fairness issue that I cannot ignore. So although I like the Opposition argument better I feel compelled by a fairness voting issue to vote for the proposition.


    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