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: Helen Maag (HB Woodlawn) vs. Opposition: Katey-Anne Clark (Molly Ockett Middle School)

Judge: Isaac Liu (Liberty University)

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

  • Helen Maag
    Helen Maag
    vs.



    Katey-Anne  Clark
    Katey-Anne Clark
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 03:45:40PM EST by Helen Maag

    Citations

    Show

    https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-nuclear-energy-vs--fossil-fuel.html
    https://newestcorp.com/nuclear-solution-fossil-fuel/
    http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/8/16/renewables-cant-save-the-planet-only-nuclear-can
    https://www.who.int/airpollution/news-and-events/how-air-pollution-is-destroying-our-health
    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Posted at May 19, 2020 09:24:31PM EST by Katey-Anne Clark

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy

    https://ucsusa.org/resources/brief-history-nuclear-accidents-worldwide

    https://www.history.com/news/historys-worst-nuclear-disasters

    https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/how-long-fossil-fuels-last-43432/

    Posted at May 20, 2020 07:20:41PM EST by Helen Maag

    Citations

    Show

    same as before

    Posted at May 21, 2020 08:54:21PM EST by Katey-Anne Clark

    Citations

    Show

    https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html

    Posted at May 22, 2020 01:42:03PM EST by Helen Maag

    Citations

    Show

    same as before

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 24, 2020 01:10:59AM EST by Isaac Liu

    Category Helen Maag Katey-Anne Clark
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 4.3 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 4.5
    Identification of key points: 3.1 3
    Comments: Positives:
    - Excellent delivery
    - first speech was very well organized and evidence well-cited in speech
    - good focus on what you needed to win the debate

    Negatives:
    - Be more clear on what evidence you are referring to, especially in later speeches. Reference the website, author name, or something.
    - Do impact analysis. Organize your final speech explaining what is happening now, how nuclear power can stop that, and why that matters. You did a very good job explaining the environmental collapse scenario, but you should do the same with reliability. Why does reliability matter?

    If you work out those negatives and continue on the positives, you will be a very successful debater. Good luck the rest of the tournament!
    Positives:
    - Excellent delivery. I can tell you're an actor, very good.
    - Good story-telling. I'll mention this later in the negatives, but the scenarios you presented were well-constructed.

    Negatives:
    - There needs to be clear citation of evidence in the speech. Either say "according to [source]" or "[Author Lastname, Year]" or something to refer to what source you are using. These sources need to be referenced in later speeches as well.
    - - Do impact analysis. Organize your final speech explaining what is happening now, how nuclear power changes that, and why that is bad. You did a very good job explaining how nuclear power does something bad, but it would help to focus on how switching to nuclear power makes it worse and explain why that matters. How many people die to radioactive waste? How much more is the risk of accidents?
    - Introduce your best arguments early -- don't save them for the last speech. I'm referencing specifically your mining and production of uranium and nuclear power plants leads to CO2 emissions. Judges typically don't evaluate "new arguments" such as that when made in the final speech.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Helen Maag

    Reason for Decision:

    I voted in proposition due to more clear impact analysis. I understood what would happen if we didn't switch away from fossil fuels. Although the opposition had good points, there wasn't a clear explanation of why nuclear waste is the worst thing ever. Specifically, the proposition argument that there have been less than 50 deaths to nuclear accidents and more than 7 million per year due to fossil fuels went uncontested.

    I would like to see better organization and better use of evidence by both sides. Clearly cite your evidence in the speech, and refer to them in later speeches. That would take your debating from good to great.


    2 Comments

    Thanks Katey. You did great too. - Helen Maag on May 30, 2020 at 11:59AM EST
    Good job Helen! You did really good! https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif - Katey-Anne Clark on May 24, 2020 at 09:36AM 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