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: andrew cui (William Annin Middle School) vs. Opposition: Laura Aybar (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

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

  • andrew cui
    andrew cui

    Laura Aybar
    Laura Aybar
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 07:50:09PM EST by andrew cui



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 19, 2020 11:20:24PM EST by Laura Aybar




    CDC - Uranium miners (1) - NIOSH study summary. (2020, April 8). Retrieved from

    Deseret News. (2001, February 13). Uranium mining left a legacy of death. Retrieved from

    Uranium: The deadliest metal. (n.d.). Retrieved from

    Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs. (2011, May 11). Retrieved from


    As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from

    The devastating truth behind this image. (2015, October 28). Retrieved from


    Epstein, A. (2015, January 14). How opposition to fossil fuels hurts the poor most of all. Retrieved from

    RICHMOND. (2018, June 18). Fossil fuels have reduced poverty, not increased it. Retrieved from

    Shifts to renewable energy can drive up energy poverty, study finds. (2020, May 19). Retrieved from

    What if you had no modern energy? The realities of solving energy poverty. (2019, June 1). Retrieved from

    Posted at May 20, 2020 07:02:56PM EST by andrew cui



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 22, 2020 02:41:43AM EST by Laura Aybar



    2017 U.S. energy and employment report. (n.d.).
    Emerging Technology from the arXiv. (2015, April 17). The chances of another Chernobyl before 2050? 50%, say safety specialists. MIT Technology Review.
    Rees, E. (2018, February 14). Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option. the Guardian.
    Researchers develop AI to cut staff costs for advanced reactors. (n.d.). Nuclear Energy Insider.
    Segal, R. (2018, October 9). Should we depend on fossil fuels or renewable energy?
    Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power. (2017, March 29). Journalist's Resource.

    Posted at May 22, 2020 01:12:55PM EST by andrew cui



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 23, 2020 11:24:45PM EST by David Kane

    Category andrew cui Laura Aybar
    Use of evidence: 3 4.5
    Delivery skill: 4 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 4
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: Beware of making broad, superlative statements like "the end of the world." Use evidence to quantify the impact. You did have a potentially powerful argument to make about scale of impacts

    I think you misunderstood the economic argument your opponent was making. You responded with details about how many people are involved with mining, but the opposition was making a point about the economic impact of cheap energy. Look at something like China's GDP grew ( ) as their share of nuclear power grew ( )

    One of the advantages of this format is you can easily look up evidence. E.g. your opponent tried to attribute the reduction of infant mortality due to economic growth with a reduction infant mortality, but it is not hard to find sources connecting coal to infant mortality (e.g. ) I just bring this up as an example of a way that you can use evidence in the debate.

    Don't cite evidence you don't need to. In your constructive, you had some data on cost per mil for various energy types, and the first thing you read was about hydro power.

    Be careful about calling out your opponent for "false information." She may have had information that conflicted with yours, measured something slightly different, etc, but that does not make it false. Your opponent provided plenty of references to assess the details.
    I don't want to read your evidence citations to understand your arguments. Make sure you articulate.

    I thought your China example was vulnerable. First, the facts don't back up your argument. ( See ) and ( ) But even if they were aligned, be careful about confusing Corrleation and Causation ( ) Chine encountered many other changes in that period of growth -- growth of the private economy, joined the WTO, etc.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Laura Aybar

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition won the point on economic inequality.

    The opposition was able to express in more concretely and with stronger evidence the long term consequences (waste, accidents, etc) of nuclear power.

    The economic argument was a wash. Both sides did a good job articulating a case for why their was the cheaper solution

    Thank you for the debate.

    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: