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: Emiliano del Rio (Virgina shuman young) vs. Opposition: Julian Slive (A.D. Henderson School (FAU))

Judge: Kathryn Rubino (U.S. Military Academy)

Resolution: Finals Week: Kids should get to set their own bedtimes.

  • Emiliano del Rio
    Emiliano del Rio
    vs.



    Julian Slive
    Julian Slive
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 07:04:02PM EST by Emiliano del Rio

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 19, 2020 05:44:53PM EST by Julian Slive

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 20, 2020 06:24:39PM EST by Emiliano del Rio

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 21, 2020 05:42:13PM EST by Julian Slive

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 22, 2020 10:31:50AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 23, 2020 05:08:55PM EST by Kathryn Rubino

    Category Emiliano del Rio Julian Slive
    Use of evidence: 3 4.3
    Delivery skill: 3.3 4.4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 4.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3.8
    Identification of key points: 2.8 3.8
    Comments: Emiliano -- good job. I think you did a nice job identifying reasons why sharing is good. In the future you should work on responding to the arguments your opponents makes. Also, you should note the specific resolutional question in your first speech, about being forced to share candy with your parents. Julian -- well done. you do a great job on answering the specific arguments your opponent makes. In the future, you can work on expanding on your impacts so the judge has a clear picture of what it means to for for the opposition.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Julian Slive

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote on the argument that forcing kids to share leads to resentment and makes kids less likely to share in the future. That means that all the good things about sharing the proposition talks about get turned into arguments for the opposition. (If I vote for the proposition that kids should be forced to share it makes sharing less likely to happen, which is a bad thing.)


    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