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: Davina Seidler (St. Paul's Co-Educational College Primary School) vs. Opposition: Alexis Drozdowski (Binghamton West Middle)

Judge: Dan Weiser (Woodstock Day School)

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

  • Davina Seidler
    Davina Seidler
    vs.



    Alexis Drozdowski
    Alexis Drozdowski
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 10:51:30AM EST by Davina Seidler

    Citations

    Show

    https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-nuclear-energy-vs--fossil-fuel.html

    Posted at May 19, 2020 11:09:08PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 20, 2020 10:34:19AM EST by Davina Seidler

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank

    https://latestsolarnews.com/solar-energy-risks-to-health/

    https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/disadvantages_windenergy.php

    Posted at May 21, 2020 10:01:18PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 22, 2020 11:54:08AM EST by Davina Seidler

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 24, 2020 10:58:57AM EST by Dan Weiser

    Category Davina Seidler Alexis Drozdowski
    Use of evidence: 3 5
    Delivery skill: 3 5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 4
    Identification of key points: 3 4.5
    Comments: Great job in this debate! I encourage you to make your speeches take up the allotted time so that you can add more to your arguments. Your opponent badly damages nuclear power and you only spend 46 seconds on a response that does not really address her concerns. While i think you are right that there are risks with solar they are not clear enough or strong enough or supported with enough evidence to counter to range of risks brought up against nuclear. Well done. You hammer away clearly and coherently against nuclear. I do think your opponent brings up some good points against solar that should be responded to to mitigate the harms you accept as part of your plan, but ultimately the risk of nuclear is significantly greater and your analysis if spot on.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Alexis Drozdowski

    Reason for Decision:

    Alexis brings up a range of valid points that i do not think are refuted. Specifically that there are still harms 34 years after a nuclear event, we only get 80 years of fuel, and need the store the dangerous fuel indefinitely. The arguments against renewables were not nearly as clear of coherent to convince me we should not look closer to renewables as a way to move off fossil fuels.


    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