Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (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 11:11:00PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Citation 1: Boston Public Health commission.
Citation 3: School meal program
Posted at April 29, 2020 07:40:18AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
CDC- percent of adults drinking sugary drinks each day
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
Posted at April 29, 2020 11:25:32PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Citation 1 : How short term habits can last long
Posted at April 30, 2020 10:43:31PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 1, 2020 11:52:04PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 7, 2020 10:43:53PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Maya Hulyalkar||Zyva Ali|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.3||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||4||3.9|
|Comments:||I like your argument about how education should be about more than just math and science. I also like that you provide sources for your opening speech. I think you could do a better job at explaining why banning the sale of sugary drinks will be able to solve the problems. You're very good on the impact level of the debate. You just need to do better on the solvency portion of the debate.
Good job responding to your opponent and pointing out some inconsistencies. Make sure you weigh your impacts a bit more. Great job explaining why your evidence is better than your opponent's arguments. Spend more time explaining why the arguments you're making win you the round instead of just making the argument and moving onto your next point.
|Great energy in your voice and great job explaining why the ban on sugary drinks won't end up causing kids to stop drinking them. I like your latent desire argument a lot. Good job numbering your arguments as well. I like some of your arguments on how other options can solve for the health problems better than a ban on sugary drinks. However, I would suggest explaining why these serve as a reason to reject your opponent. Otherwise then why not do both (ban sugary drinks at home as well as at schools).
Nice work explaining why you deserve to win the round. I like your argument about how a partnered approach is better than schools taking action by themselves. However, this still implies than maybe schools should ban alongside other actions. You need to explain why these other strategies serve as a reason to reject your opponent instead of just being another good idea of what can be done.
The decision is for the Opposition: Zyva Ali
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opposition because Maya doesn't prove that banning sugary drinks in schools will solve the problem of kids consuming it. We need to do more than just ban the sale of sugary drinks at school. The prop can either make the argument that a ban by schools is a step in the right direction and will help set up the partnerships the opposition says is needed versus doing nothing; or the prop can extend impacts that are specific to kids consuming sugary drinks in schools. Without either of these arguments being made explicitly, even if sugary drinks are bad, the prop doesn't win the schools banning their sale at school will actually solve the problem. You do a valiant job at bringing it back to the resolution (a ban or not). However, if the opposition wins that a ban alone won't solve then you don't win that a ban will work, which makes those other arguments a reason for why the proposition doesn't win the debate. I do think this is a very close debate and you both do a very good job!