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: Sophie Chen (Maryknoll Convent School (Primary Section)) vs. Opposition: Eesha Kodali (Novi Middle School)

Judge: Trevor Reddick (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.

  • Sophie Chen
    Sophie Chen

    Eesha Kodali
    Eesha Kodali
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 12, 2020 01:09:38AM EST by Sophie Chen




    Posted at May 12, 2020 08:48:04PM EST by Eesha Kodali



    Posted at May 13, 2020 10:12:42AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz




    Posted at May 14, 2020 04:24:26PM EST by Eesha Kodali



    Posted at May 15, 2020 08:17:13AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz




    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 17, 2020 04:47:15PM EST by Trevor Reddick

    Category Sophie Chen Eesha Kodali
    Use of evidence: 3.8 4.2
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 3.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Make sure to watch the time for each speech! Your last speech spent over a minute extra. Good luck! Great use of evidence early in the debate, make sure that all of your sources are of good quality and you can defend them against critique. Good luck!

    The decision is for the Opposition: Eesha Kodali

    Reason for Decision:

    Opposition makes a couple of key arguments that go un-responded to which win them the debate. Overall, in this debate I conclude that making healthcare free will do overhwlem existing infrastructure, making it net-worse than private care:

    Proposition counters that people will just expand infrastructure to meet demand.

    However, Opposition makes an uncontested argument that enhanced costs from increased government regulation and lowered reimbursements due to fixed pricing will incentivize medical professionals to discontinue practice, lower care quality, and eventually generate mass exodus from the profession.

    This means that even if more people theoretically get access to new medical care, the collective setbacks will massively lower overall standard of care to the detriment of society

    Both sides made great use of evidence early in the debate, but didn't bring it up again as much later in the debate. Make sure to bring your articles and studies back up later on in the debate to support your argument. That will distinguish your arguments and make them more believable than the opponents!

    Side-note: I did not evaluate new arguments in the last speeches as the opponent doesn't get to respond to them. Make sure to only bring up new arguments in the constructive speeches, and use the rebuttals to explain to me why your arguments are better than the opponents.

    Also, don't just re-say single lines like "costs will go up" or "less people get access" and spend more time explaining what that means and why it's true. I'm not persuaded by you just re-reading all of your points at the end of a speech, use the time to summarize and explain how i should evaluate the debate, not just repeating arguments i already heard!

    very good debate, and good luck going forward!

    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: