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: Zyva Ali (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Daniel Hartford (Outschool Online - Intermediate)

Judge: Michelle Thomas (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: Resolved: Governments should implement a meat tax.

  • Zyva Ali
    Zyva Ali

    Daniel Hartford
    Daniel Hartford
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 27, 2020 11:12:51PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz




    Posted at April 28, 2020 11:02:01PM EST by Daniel Hartford



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 29, 2020 11:23:40PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    Posted at April 30, 2020 10:12:36PM EST by Daniel Hartford



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 1, 2020 11:50:14PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    What We Eat in America, NHANES :

    University of Illinois research:

    A Guide to Smart Snacks in School:

    Ambulatory Assessment:


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 4, 2020 10:02:43AM EST by Michelle Thomas

    Category Zyva Ali Daniel Hartford
    Use of evidence: 4.7 1.5
    Delivery skill: 4.3 3.9
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.7
    Identification of key points: 4.6 4.5
    Comments: Great use of evidence! Very clear delivery style, and great identification of key points.

    I would recommend responding to the argument about you talking to fast (although I don't personally believe you did), saying arguments like how speed is impossible to determine - everyone speaks at a different speed and your opponent didn't make a clear indication of what is an acceptable speed.
    Good job following the order of the speech and having direct responses.

    I would recommend using evidence to back up your points - you claim your opponents evidence isn't trustworthy, but you haven't given any citations to back up your argument to prove it true.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Zyva Ali

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote to ban sugary sodas in schools. I think the pro has shown, with evidence, clear reasons why banning those sugary drinks would help improve education and the health of students. None of the oppositions arguments has evidence to prove it is true, so I default to the pro's arguments. I have no way of knowing if soda sales are actually tied to teachers salaries, and I think the pro had a reasonable argument that schools can find new and innovative ways to find funding, including selling less sugary drink options.

    The speed argument was not developed enough for me to vote on it - I found the pro to be easy to understand and did not need to repeat the speech to understand it. I think that with no explanation for what a reasonable speed is, you leave your argument very open to interpretation, which is not good for the cons side.

    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: