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: Jesse Tolentino (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Haley Heerdt (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: James Stanescu (Mercer University)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Jesse Tolentino
    Jesse Tolentino
    vs.



    Haley Heerdt
    Haley Heerdt
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at November 18, 2013 06:49:32PM EST by Jesse Tolentino

    Citations

    Show

    Dawn A. Edick ([Professor of Law]), Boston College Interational and Comparative Law Review. Regulation of Pornography on the Internet in the Unite States and the United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis

    Case Law was found at:
    http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pp_li_pfa.html

    Gerard V. Bradley ([Professor of Law]) University of Notre Dame Law School "The Moral bases for the Legal Regulation of Pornography
    http://www.socialcostsofpornography.com/Bradley_Moral_Bases_for_Legal_Regulation.pdf

    National Coalition to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation. The Impact of Pornography on Children & Youth
    http://www.preventtogether.org/Resources/Documents/Impact_of_Porn_on_Youth_9.pdf

    Posted at November 20, 2013 12:44:29AM EST by Haley Heerdt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 21, 2013 12:34:23AM EST by Jesse Tolentino

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 22, 2013 02:43:43AM EST by Haley Heerdt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 23, 2013 02:41:28AM EST by Jesse Tolentino

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 24, 2013 08:21:25PM EST by James Stanescu

    Category Jesse Tolentino Haley Heerdt
    Use of evidence: 3.8 3.2
    Delivery skill: 5.1 5.1
    Coherence of arguments: 4.7 4.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.2 4.5
    Identification of key points: 3.7 5
    Comments: Read the RFD first. I think you figure out the right arguments to be making in your final speech. But honestly, I don't think displaying porn was helping your arguments in the first place, and one wonders why you did it. If you are going to do something you gotta foresee will have something ran against it, the hope would be to figure out how to use that to your advantage. Like, an irony advantage, or something.

    Also, because I play the videos in the background with my flow in the foreground, I didn't even see the video until it was highlighted for me in the debate round.
    Read the RFD first. Another point you should be making is that there is nothing about his plan text to stop him from displaying porn unless he is underage (unlikely). In other words, his display of ease of access to porn is not actually solved back by his plan.
    Moreover, you make some age arguments early on, but nothing ever comes of them.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Haley Heerdt

    Reason for Decision:

    First, this was a very good round, especially by the standards of these online debates. Second, both people went over their time limits, particularly the last Opp speech. if someone had flagged some voters on those time issues, I would have easily pulled the trigger on them.

    Okay, I end up voting Opp in the round on the kritik. This is not an easy decision, but it goes like this.

    The prop rebuttal does not take into account the opp's constructive that the action of showing porn in the round has real world consequences -- such as violating her school's contract, her personal feelings and faith, the fact that this video could not be shown as educational material to high schoolers and middle schoolers, etc. While I buy the prop's argument this contradiction is not performative, but rather trying to highlight the need for gov action, that answer does not actually address these possible real world harms. I assume the prop gets that in his final speech, when he makes arguments about the size, and quality of the porn in the background. I think these are good arguments. Sadly, they are also brand new arguments. Because of this, I have to vote on the k.

    As far as the cp, the t, the vagueness, and the DA, I think the prop is ahead on all of these issues. Opp, I think your negative strategy is a little disjointed. I also think the real arguments to make is about the extra-topical notions of his funding mechanisms to get out of the spending DA.

    Regardless, this was a good debate, good job everyone.


    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