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: Lucas Hinds (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Connor Harris (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology l)

Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)

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

  • Lucas Hinds
    Lucas Hinds
    vs.



    Connor Harris
    Connor Harris
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 11:25:14PM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 19, 2020 03:57:17PM EST by Connor Harris

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/longstaff1/
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-cheapest-energy-source-wind-and-solar-power/

    Posted at May 21, 2020 02:34:31AM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 21, 2020 03:52:27PM EST by Connor Harris

    Citations

    Show

    https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/12/12/a-way-to-achieve-100-solar-power-in-the-u-s-without-sacrificing-arizona/
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

    Posted at May 22, 2020 05:54:55PM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    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
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 6 6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: strengths:
    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 https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif

    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.


    1 Comment

    Thank you for a good match. It was close! - Lucas Hinds on May 23, 2020 at 11:13PM 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