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 11:57:13PM EST by Jordan Knight
Posted at February 27, 2014 11:52:41PM EST by Khasim Lockhart
Posted at February 28, 2014 06:28:51PM EST by Jordan Knight
None available for this speech.
Posted at March 2, 2014 10:28:08PM EST by Khasim Lockhart
Posted at March 3, 2014 03:51:30PM EST by Jordan Knight
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at March 5, 2014 08:23:18AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Jordan Knight||Khasim Lockhart|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.3||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.2||5.1|
|Identification of key points:||5||5|
|Comments:||Some of your speaking style comes across as a bit sarcastic / over the top. At other times it's productive voice inflection. In regards to your cites you should include more than website links in the box so they appear more credible. Good job on finding good articles though. You could also do more in getting at the terminal impact of your harms more.
You should continue to provide additional evidence and sources in your second speech. Ie you should come up with more evidence to disprove the opposition instead of just relying on the evidence in your first speech.
|Speak with more excitement in your voice. You speak in a very monotone way. Pull the viewer in. You also label a lot of things as proof that sugary drinks are beneficial when what you're really saying is that they aren't so harmful. Your livestrong source is the best on being offense but the end of that article states "Regardless of the few benefits that soft drinks may deliver, you need to be aware of the risks that go along with their consumption." This implies that on the whole it might not be that great. Good job responding to your opponent's points though.
Use all your speech time in your second speech. Failing to do so gives the proposition an advantage. Good examples of different sizes that have been implemented. Good emphasis on moderation. However, I think you should better deal with how moderation can be enforced within school settings more readily.
The decision is for the Proposition: Jordan Knight
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the proposition since I think that a ban would be better at decreasing soda consumption versus a decrease in size of soda leading to moderation. It would be helpful if the opposition made the argument that the benefits of soda could not be attained elsewhere; or if the proposition explained how easy the benefits of soda would be to attain elsewhere. Both sides leave it up to the judge to determine who they agree with more. I went with the proposition since the one piece of evidence that is referenced in every speech about how the ban has worked in certain schools goes mostly unanswered so it gives me a high risk of solving; while the major piece of evidence on the opposition side is answered by pointing out how it also concludes that there are negative effects. Additional evidence to back up the benefits from the opposition would help to counter that. Good debate overall though by both sides.