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: Samson Widerman (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Ian Kim (Binghamton University)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

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

  • Samson Widerman
    Samson Widerman

    Ian Kim
    Ian Kim
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at February 26, 2014 09:23:23PM EST by Samson Widerman



    Posted at February 27, 2014 11:15:46PM EST by Ian Kim



    Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. (2011). Soda Bans In Schools Don't Curb Student Consumption Of Sugary Drinks, Study Shows. Retrieved February 20, 2014 from:

    Huffingtonpost. (2011). Soda Bans in Schools Dont Curb Student Consumption Of Sugary
    Drinks, Study Shows Retrieved February 19, 2014 from:

    Philpott, T. (2012). 80 Percent of Public Schools Have Contracts With Coke or Pepsi. Mother
    Jones. Retrieved February 27, 2014. From:

    Posted at February 28, 2014 08:35:52PM EST by Samson Widerman



    Posted at March 2, 2014 10:01:42PM EST by Ian Kim



    Oxford Dictionaries.

    Nature Neuroscience. (2013). Post-study caffeine administration enhances memory
    consolidation in humans. Retrieved from:

    Posted at March 3, 2014 11:52:21PM EST by Samson Widerman



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at March 5, 2014 11:22:28PM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Samson Widerman Ian Kim
    Use of evidence: 5.6 4.5
    Delivery skill: 5.3 4.8
    Coherence of arguments: 5.1 4.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.9 4.8
    Identification of key points: 5 4.9
    Comments: You are a great speaker. Almost everyone gives unnecessary underviews at the end of their speeches, but you did not until your last speech (You never need to say "in conclusion" in a debate. Ever). I liked your usage of a Coca-Cola bottle and a glass of water as props; I think more people should do things like this given this format of debate.

    Your second speech responded in very good ways. I would try to more explicitly draw lines from his arguments to your arguments. Excellent work indicting his evidence.

    Your last speech should start with the reasons why your plan is a good thing, and then proceed to answer his objections. Your refutation was solid, but you didn't remind me why sugar is so unhealthy in the first place like you did in the beginning of the debate.
    Very good. I'm glad that you did not give an underview for your first speech, but you didn't need one for your second. Avoid saying things like "My opponent didn't provide a reason why X is bad" as that is not an argument; instead, say "X is good because Y." You should explicitly advocate for a counter-plan that only does the education portion of the proposition's plan instead of alluding to the benefits of why such a counter-plan would be good. I would be very persuaded by such an argument, especially because that component of his plan is highly extra-topical, as in, the core of his plan is topical, but he also fiats something outside of the scope of the resolution.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Samson Widerman

    Reason for Decision:

    Both of you need to do impact calculus. The opposition asserts that freedom is more important than health without giving any reason as to why this is. I default to thinking that health is more important than happiness as it is a prerequisite for happiness and happiness is not quantifiable (I should not use what makes Ian Kim personally happy as a metric for public policy).

    The opposition does not win any arguments for why the plan hurts children's health, so that alone is enough for me to think the plan is worth trying. The proposition very cleverly deals with pouring rights and makes it a non-issue. Caffeine is not exclusive to sugary drinks, and the additional focus is outweighed by the terminal harms of sugar for the reasons stated above. I am persuaded by the argument that children should not be given license to damage their bodies as they do not necessarily know what is good or bad for them at this stage of their life.

    1 Comment

    This is a fabulous post. - Ronald Davis on July 14, 2021 at 04:17AM 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: