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 12:21:33PM EST by Ian Chung
Posted at May 21, 2020 11:09:03AM EST by Ian Chung
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 22, 2020 11:14:54AM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Maria Perez||Ian Chung|
|Use of evidence:||5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.9||4.9|
|Identification of key points:||6||6|
|Comments:||in the first speech
strengths: good volume, good hand gestures, good enthusiasm and emphasis of key words.
areas for improvement: it would be helpful to include the publish date of your outside research in the oral citations. the speed of delivery was fine for me, but may be too fast for the average judge.
in the second speech
strengths: good identification of opponent arguments and refutation.
places for improvement: although in this speech you gave the publish years for some of the outside research, it would be helpful to give the credentials of the author in addition to their last name and publish year. who is the author/source and why are they credible on this topic? discuss whether the negative must negate the resolution or be allowed to present alternatives such as renewable energy instead of nuclear power. why should the opposition's burden be only to compare fossil fuels vs. nuclear power?
in the last speech:
strengths: good reminding judge of key pieces of evidence, good enthusiasm and volume.
places to improve: since the speech is so short i would not recommend using speech time at the end to review your arguments again.
|in the first speech:
strengths: speed of delivery, volume, eye contact
places for improvement: when bringing in outside research, you should specify what the publish date for your research is. for example, when did the bulletin for atomic scientists say that? what year is the world nuclear industry status report from?
in the second speech:
strengths: speed of delivery, outside research
places to improve: you should clarify whether you agree with the framework set up by the proposition in the first speech (environmental stability, well being of the most number of people). do you have a different framework? do you think your arguments fit within this framework? you can probably find more evidence to support the claim that nuclear accidents are likely/nuclear power is not so safe.
The decision is for the Opposition: Ian Chung
Reason for Decision:
this was a good debate
at the end of the debate the framework both teams seemed to agree with was I should vote for the team that promotes the most environmental stability and the well being of the most number of people.
both teams seemed to agree fossil fuels should be replaced with something else. the proposition said nuclear power should replace fossil fuels. the opposition said renewable energy sources should replace fossil fuels - perhaps wind and solar energy. the proposition should spend more time explaining why the negative cannot present an alternative/counter proposal and must instead defend that nuclear power is bad and fossil fuels are good. the proposition asserts this claim but does not give any reasons why this is a correct/better division of affirmative and negative ground under the resolution.
the opposition did a good job providing reasons why renewable energy would be environmentally friendly and stable, compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The opposition did a good job explaining why nuclear power is unsafe and accidents and nuclear proliferation could be bad consequences of increased nuclear power.
I am not sure why either team spent time discussing the cost/$ of nuclear power since it was not explained how the cost relates to environment stability or well-being of the most number of people.