Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: Sugary drinks should not be sold in primary and secondary schools.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at February 26, 2014 09:39:00PM EST by Anna Vattana
Hawkes, Corinna, PhD. "The Worldwide Battle Against Soft Drinks in Schools." Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Yale Rudd Center, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://ruddcenter.yale.edu/resources/upload/docs/what/policy/SoftDrinksSchools_Hawkes_AJPM_4.10.pdf>.
World Health Organization, "Obesity and Overweight." WHO. n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/>.
American Heart Association. "Policy Approaches to Address Obesity." American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_453908.pdf>.
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. "Soft Drinks and School Age Children: Trend Effects Solution." N.C. DHHS, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dph/oralhealth/library/includes/ed-materials/Soft_Drinks_and_School_Age_Children.pdf>.
"Average Length of School Year and Average Length of School Day." U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. <http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/table_15.asp>.
Ipatenco, Sara. "Healthy Eating." Healthy Eating. Hearst Newspapers, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. <http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/maximum-amount-sugar-day-children-8982.html>.
Posted at February 27, 2014 09:59:52PM EST by Byron Ruano
--Essay:The Worldwide Battle Against Soft Drinks in Schools.
--Report on research published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. <http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/08/banning-sugared-drinks-in-schools-doesnt-lower-student-consumption/#ixzz2tvE4wRH3>
Posted at February 28, 2014 06:55:02PM EST by Anna Vattana
"Booster Shots." Doctors Weigh in against the Soda Tax. Los Angeles Times, 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/01/soda-tax-new-york-california.html>.
Posted at March 2, 2014 06:56:18PM EST by Byron Ruano
Sources cited by my opponent and mentioned by me:
-"Booster Shots." Doctors Weigh in against the Soda Tax. Los Angeles Times, 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/01/soda-tax-new-york-california.html>.
Posted at March 3, 2014 10:26:56PM EST by Anna Vattana
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at March 4, 2014 11:50:57AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Anna Vattana||Byron Ruano|
|Use of evidence:||5.3||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.9||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||4|
|Comments:||Good speaking voice. There is background noise in your video that would be easy to eliminate. You should have more harms than just obesity in your opening speech. You should also do better at providing a bigger terminal impact to the harm as well.
Good responses to the CP and addressing the majority of your time there since it's the one argument you can lose on.
Computer noise in your final video again. It's easy to remove. Watch the video on editing out background noise.
|Speak louder or edit the video to increase audio volume. When you agree with as much as you do you need to make sure that your points of contention are competitive and offensive. Get to your CP quicker since otherwise most of your speech is "it may not be successful."
Too long of an intro that was filled with ad homs before answering her arguments. Why is her sources are biased? Also, again, you emphasize defense instead of offense in your speech. The points you mention are not reasons to reject the proposition but just reasons why it might not work. Your freedom argument is the only thing you have left that is potentially offense.
The decision is for the Proposition: Anna Vattana
Reason for Decision:
When the opposition doesn't go for the CP there's almost no reason to vote neg since pretty much everything else is defensive. In regards to freedom, I think the prop adequately answers this argument by enabling each school ban as they see fit as well as enabling students to bring what they'd like to school. After that any risk of decreasing obesity is worth the chance even if the risk of solving is small. The opposition should emphasize the offense more and/or go for the CP to prove that what they're advocating is the better route to solving the problem.