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: Aaron Felings (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Anson Fong (Unaffiliated)

Judge: Konstantin Popov (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Resolved: Governments should implement a meat tax.

  • Aaron Felings
    Aaron Felings
    vs.



    Anson Fong
    Anson Fong
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2020 07:08:47PM EST by Aaron Felings

    Citations

    Show

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/14903/pros-cons-for-a-one-world-government

    https://www.alux.com/world-government/

    Posted at April 21, 2020 05:52:02AM EST by Anson Fong

    Citations

    Show

    1. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/role-competition-promoting-dynamic-markets-and-economic-growth
    2. https://steemit.com/debate/@sykochica/debate-one-world-government-advantages-and-disadvantages

    Posted at April 22, 2020 07:28:14PM EST by Aaron Felings

    Citations

    Show

    none

    Posted at April 23, 2020 08:15:59AM EST by Anson Fong

    Citations

    Show

    1. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/role-competition-promoting-dynamic-markets-and-economic-growth

    Posted at April 24, 2020 08:43:23PM EST by Aaron Felings

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.aclu.org/other/immigrants-and-economy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2020 07:33:09PM EST by Konstantin Popov

    Category Aaron Felings Anson Fong
    Use of evidence: 3 3.5
    Delivery skill: 4.2 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 4
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4
    Comments: General Notes

    -more resources collectively
    -no wars, no nukes
    -reduced crime? weak impact cuz domestic crime more common
    -no military expenses
    -no more terrorism
    -tech and medical advancements with newfound resources
    -climate change benefits

    -maintains that cultures could still persist as the same
    -outlines system of dealing with issues, could have went more in depth
    -representatives from each country, equal say, democratic
    -free to live anywhere
    -xenophobia

    Feedback

    You make a lot of good points, but I'd like to see you use more evidence to back up your claims. The more factual you are, rather than hypothetical, the better off you'll be.
    -more harm than good
    -competition stimulates innovation, such as advancements in tech and medicine, used greater evidence to back up claim than the proposition
    -eliminating currencies, slippery slope argument, what's next? eliminating cultures?
    -losing unique cultural identity is a strong impact
    -different countries have different needs and circumstances
    -more risk if all of the world's responsibility placed on 1 government
    -uneven taxation, rich countries vs poor countries
    General Notes

    -chaos in people lived anywhere, greater economic risk
    -too many problems for one government to deal with
    -democracy is often inefficient

    Feedback

    As the opposition it is important to remember that you should be centering your argument in response to the proposition's claims. While your critique of a single world government was good, it left many of the proposed benefits uncontested. Take your opponent's claims and negate them rather than responding with original claims of your own.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Aaron Felings

    Reason for Decision:

    Many of the benefits presented by the proposition went unchallenged, making it difficult to vote for the opposition. The opposition used more evidence to back up their claims, but only used this evidence to refute 1 or 2 proposed benefits. The proposition mentioned the collective use of resources, reallocating military budgets to advancements in tech and medicine, and climate change efforts. The tech advancement point would have went to the opposition when Anson explained how competition stimulates innovation and advances. However Aaron combated this by mentioning how private companies will still be competing as is in the status quo. Anson's ideas were good, for example uneven taxation and economic risk. But these critiques weren't directed at points made by Aaron, and much of his early statements were left uncontested. For this reason I voted for Aaron. Great job by both sides.


    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT