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: Miranda Chiguma (Binghamton East Middle) vs. Opposition: Amanda Gonzalez (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Week 3: This House Believes That Nation-States Have an Obligation to Unconditionally Allow Entry for Legal Refugees.

  • Miranda Chiguma
    Miranda Chiguma
    vs.



    Amanda Gonzalez
    Amanda Gonzalez
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 11, 2020 11:25:44PM EST by Miranda Chiguma

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 13, 2020 02:05:53AM EST by Amanda Gonzalez

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 13, 2020 11:36:19PM EST by Miranda Chiguma

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 15, 2020 02:39:32AM EST by Amanda Gonzalez

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 15, 2020 11:07:20PM EST by Miranda Chiguma

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 21, 2020 08:21:37AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Miranda Chiguma Amanda Gonzalez
    Use of evidence: 3.6 3.6
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.8
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.2
    Identification of key points: 3.8 5
    Comments: I would suggest providing sources in the text box for your speeches so your opponent and judge can check where your information is coming from. You make a bunch of good arguments but they're all phrased as just your opinion and not supported by facts and evidence. I'd also suggest spending more time explaining how UHC can solve the impacts you talk about in your opening speech.

    Try not to say "I believe" as much as you do. It makes it seem like your arguments are based only on your opinion. Good job citing sources within your speech. Again, I'd put it in the text box as well. I'd also suggest that you explain why I should prefer your sources over your opponents. I like your arguments on the economic benefits of providing UHC. Now you just need to answer your opponent's argument on how private health care = better screening things like breast cancer and/or weigh why your economic savings argument outweighs and is more important.
    I would also suggest that you provide sources for your arguments in the text box. I like that you at least say where your sources are within your speech but I would have liked the opportunity to go to your sources and review them myself. I like your framework for the debate and how you frame what that ballot should mean. You have a little too many subpoint, contention, etc structure. Structure is good, but sometimes it gets in the way of providing a good narrative and breaks up your speech too much. I've definitely seen worse, and this suggestion is definitely a judge preference. I'd also suggest starting to answer you opponent more explicitly in your opening speech instead of just laying out your arguments.

    Good job pointing out the framework that gets dropped as well as how your 2nd contention gets dropped. I would suggest expanding on the impact of that contention more. If it's conceded you should win the round on it. Make sure you explain why that argument is a round winner and not just some minor point that didn't get answered. Structure your speech around that dropped argument and win the round on it. Good job responding to your opponent in this speech.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Amanda Gonzalez

    Reason for Decision:

    I wish I had the sources so I could review the evidence, especially for Crook 18. When both debaters make arguments on what the evidence concludes, I can't determine who is right if I don't have the source to look at. Use your citation text box to provide your sources.

    I ultimately vote for the opposition because Amanda wins that UHC will save more lives (due to people being absent, more breast cancer screenings, etc). While Miranda wins more people will be insured with UHC than private health care and that UHC is probably cheaper than private insurance, there isn't an argument on why that's more important than the raw number of lives that can be saved. Amanda establishes the framework for the debate in her first speech, which is that I should vote for whatever saves more lives. That framework doesn't get answered, which means for Miranda to win she would need to prove UHC is better at saving lives and giving people good treatment. Instead Miranda wins that more people will be insured with UHC, which isn't quite the same thing. In the end, the opposition wins that private insurance provides better health care than UHC because of its quality.

    To answer this, Miranda you should have made an argument about equality and why it's problematic for some people to have really good health care while others get none. Then you can say even if UHC might be not quite as good at saving lives it's more fair for everyone to have the same access to health care even if it's a little worse than the health care some people get. In short, answer Amanda's framework and explain why solving discrimination within the health care system is the most important impact. Then from there get into your arguments on why UHC is cheaper, etc. But before that it's always good to start with framing the debate and creating a context for why you should win / how I should approach judging the round.


    1 Comment

    Thank you so much for taking the round. Your feedback was extremely helpful, I will implement it in my next rounds. Have a nice day and stay safe! - Amanda Gonzalez on May 21, 2020 at 08:27AM EST

    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