Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 19, 2020 03:57:17PM EST by Connor Harris
Posted at May 21, 2020 03:52:27PM EST by Connor Harris
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 23, 2020 10:22:47PM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Lucas Hinds||Connor Harris|
|Use of evidence:||4||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||5|
|Identification of key points:||6||6|
good rate of delivery/speed. good to define key terms at the beginning of the first constructive. clear framework explained early on. I liked the way you numbered your arguments in the first speech. good transition statements in between points. good identification of opponent arguments/summarizing them before responding to opponent's argument.
places to improve: share the publish year of your sources of research in the verbal citation. in the second speech, the rate of speaking was a little too fast for the average judge.
|strengths: good rate of delivery/speed. good eye contact in speech 1. great volume. good outside research.
places to improve: try to increase vocal variety in the first speech. describe whether you agree with the framework of cost benefit analysis set up by the proposition. in the second speech I would spend less time in the first minute of the speech discussing your opponent's key points. instead, review your own points and then begin addressing opponent's points rather than summarizing opponent points twice. when you say nuclear plants take 10 years to build according to some estimates, offer a source to support this claim.
The decision is for the Opposition: Connor Harris
Reason for Decision:
This was a good debate
The framework set up for the debate that both teams seemed to agree to was cost benefit analysis. Both teams seemed to agree that fossil fuels should be replaced. The proposition team said nuclear power should replace. The opposition said solar/wind power should replace.
Based on the debating done here, the opposition was more persuasive that the benefits of solar and wind power had more benefits than costs. I was persuaded nuclear power could have negative consequences such as radioactive waste, nuclear accidents, and possible other damage to the environment. The proposition team said that with adequate funding and research, waste could be disposed of better than the past (why would there be adequate funding and research all of the sudden?) and that the chance of a nuclear accident was low, but still possible.