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: Christina Pastoressa (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Elizabeth Jean (Binghamton University)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

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

  • Christina Pastoressa
    Christina Pastoressa

    Elizabeth Jean
    Elizabeth Jean
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at February 19, 2014 11:11:11PM EST by Christina Pastoressa



    Should Sugar Be Regulated like Alcohol and Tobacco? |

    Read more: Sugary Beverages Linked to 180,000 Deaths Worldwide |

    Posted at February 21, 2014 07:43:29AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    Posted at February 21, 2014 07:44:34PM EST by Christina Pastoressa



    Posted at February 22, 2014 10:58:41PM EST by Elizabeth Jean



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at February 23, 2014 10:22:26PM EST by Christina Pastoressa





    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at February 26, 2014 08:12:56AM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Christina Pastoressa Elizabeth Jean
    Use of evidence: 2.8 4
    Delivery skill: 3.8 3.9
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 4.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 4
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.9
    Comments: Your first video being private really hurts you.

    Sure, your article postdates hers, but it is talking about something that happened in 1903.

    You should argue that sugary drinks can be banned in addition to having health education, and give reasons why doing both of these things together would be the best option.
    I liked how you used your water bottle as a prop.

    Nice argument about Pouring Rights. It sounds absolutely evil, but it is a reason why not only banning sugary drinks is "not good", but also why it is bad.

    You had good reasons why the negative effects of pouring rights were highly irrelevant.

    Your video was really shaky. I'm fairly certain that this is because you used YouTube's enhancement tool.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Elizabeth Jean

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition wins that pouring rights contracts have benefits and that health education is a better way of addressing obesity. She also wins several reasons why the plan would not be able to solve for obesity alone.

    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: