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 28, 2020 09:44:59PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 29, 2020 05:02:08PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at April 29, 2020 08:21:53PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at April 30, 2020 04:24:41PM EST by Lucas Felings
Posted at May 1, 2020 02:30:30PM EST by Eesha Kodali
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 3, 2020 12:11:55PM EST by Benjamin Klein
|Category||Eesha Kodali||Lucas Felings|
|Use of evidence:||3||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||3.5|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||Sugary drinks cause nothing but problems for students, including sugar crashes and being unfocused in class. Could affect future test scores and future opportunities for a student based on these test scores. One can of coke has more sugar than a child should have in one day, showing that these sugary drinks not only affect productivity in the classroom, but also a child's health. By banning sugary drinks, schools can help pave the way to rid of diseases like type 2 diabetes, which sugary drinks can lead to. Responds to the opp's point that you only used coke as an example in your first speech due to the fact that coke was the most consumed beverage in her middle school, and many others in the area. Argues that her point was proven that sugary drinks don't need to be sold in schools because you can find it nearby, as the opp stated he did before his basketball practice. Responds to the trip concept by stating that there are alternatives to sugary drinks such as lemonade and orange juice without added sugar. Refutes the claim made by the opp that sugary drinks aren't addicting. Concludes this speech by stating that one of the opp's sources proves her point that sugary drinks should be substituted for healthier alternatives without added sugar. Concludes by stating that the opp failed to rebuke any of the points seemingly won when the opp brought in a source, and made a point which both sided with the prop.||Responds to the prop by stating that there are alternative choices to soda which don't have too much sugar. Also states that it doesn't only have to do with what kids consume in terms of their health, but that kids should be exercising to burn these calories gained from sugary drinks. Argues that sugary drinks can be beneficial if one is tired and needs a boost of energy. Goes on to argue that sugary drinks are a good substitution for coffee, which isn't as addictive. Thought you could have done a better job in your conclusion stating why sugary drinks shouldn't be banned rather than responding to your opponents points which don't have to completely do with the argument at hand.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Eesha Kodali
Reason for Decision:
What swayed my vote was the second speech in which Eesha stated that one of the opp's sources sides with her rather than with Lucas, and that Lucas proved her point in bringing in the story about buying gatorade at a nearby store, a solid alternative to selling these sugary drinks in schools. These two points brought by the opp didn't help his argument, but helped the prop.