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 11:49:25PM EST by Taylor Rosen
(85% drink soda) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/docs-ban-soda-pop-in-schools/
Posted at February 27, 2014 08:23:06PM EST by Samson Widerman
Fletcher, Jason M. and Frisvold, David E. and Tefft, Nathan, Can Soft Drink Taxes Reduce Population Weight?. Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 28, Issue 1, pp. 23-35, January 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1540795 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00182.x
Posted at February 28, 2014 10:54:05PM EST by Taylor Rosen
Posted at March 1, 2014 09:48:03PM EST by Samson Widerman
Posted at March 3, 2014 11:07:26PM EST by Taylor Rosen
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at March 5, 2014 08:35:49AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Taylor Rosen||Samson Widerman|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.7||5.2|
|Comments:||You need to answer the CP explicitly in your speeches since the opposition is agreeing with your main point. Emphasize what you say in the last few seconds (that banning + education) is better than the CP (or even the plan) alone. This concession of the CP in your second speech (prior to the posting error by the opposition) side is still true.||Good speaking voice, CP, and use of evidence. In your second speech I think you could do more on proving the solvency of the CP more forcefully. You should also use all your speaking time in your second speech. Failure to do so gives the proposition a side advantage based upon how much extra time and speeches they have in that world.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Samson Widerman
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opposition independent from the posting issues since the majority of the round was lost in the middle portion of the debate because the CP needs to be addressed more explicitly in the proposition rebuttal speech. This means the CP would solve the plan without the need for implementing the ban. If the proposition emphasized more on how doing both the plan on CP together would be the best option in either speech it would be easy for me to vote for the proposition. Absent that if a ban is in place then it would be tough for kids to implement the education they receive. This is why the prop's identification of key points and responsiveness is lower... the only thing that needs to be answered is the CP, not the harms of sugary drinks since both sides agree to that. The round is purely about how best to solve for consumption for which it seems like the CP solves best.