Judge: Benjamin Klein (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: Governments should implement a meat tax.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 27, 2020 05:47:21PM EST by Anya Powell
Posted at April 29, 2020 07:42:01AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at April 29, 2020 01:48:05PM EST by Anya Powell
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 30, 2020 10:46:49PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 3, 2020 11:27:35AM EST by Benjamin Klein
|Category||Anya Powell||Julianne Simonson|
|Use of evidence:||3.5||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||Strong start to your speech by bringing up that sugary drinks could lead to diabetes. Continues to state that although sugar gives you energy, it also wares you down faster, which is not an issue we want students at school having, which is a solid point. Also states that there are better options other than sugary drinks. Brings in a source to claim that sugary drinks could lead to depression and anxiety in children. Wants to focus on, and only ban the drinks that are actually unhealthy from schools. Argues, in response to the opp, that orange juice should be considered a sugary drink and shouldn't be allowed in schools. Thought you could have done a better job in responding to the opp's arguments in telling me more about the negatives of sugary drinks instead of just stating that their bad. Additionally, I would have liked to have heard where your sources came from. Responds to the opp's argument that we should trust a child's decision making, but questions how we can trust kids to make healthy decisions when they don't know whats best for them. Responds again to the point that kids won't have the freedom to drink what they want, but by banning them only in schools means that one could have a sugary drink at home.||Begins strong by responding to her opponent regarding her claim that sugary drinks lead to diabetes, which the opp states isn't true if one watches their intake of sugary drinks. Not fair to get rid of sugary drinks for everyone when there are only a few people who have this problem and drink excessively. Argues that unhealthy foods can do just as much damage, so why not also get rid of this? Responds to the examples of sugary drinks given by the prop, stating that they aren't that bad for you. Argues that natural sugars should be considered differently from artificial, which is why fruit juices should be ok. Argues that this would be taking a way a kids right to have an occasional sugary drink if they'd like. Continues to state that fruit juices have natural sugars instead of artificial, which is healthier for the body. Concludes by stating that taking away sugary drinks would be taking a way a child's freedom to drink what they want.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Julianne Simonson
Reason for Decision:
I had a hard time getting over the argument that we shouldn't get rid of sugary drinks due to their health concerns if we're keeping the same non healthy food as an option for students. The prop brought in great points in response to the opp, but I just felt that the opp gave too many good points about drinks like chocolate milk which are beneficial to children who won't drink regular milk. Ultimately, it didn't make sense to me to get rid of sugary drinks but have no issue with unhealthy foods served at schools, which is why I sided with the opp.