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: Margaret Barg (Pin Oak Middle School) vs. Opposition: Imogen Kurtz (Binghamton West Middle)

Judge: Dan Weiser (Woodstock Day School)

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

  • Margaret Barg
    Margaret Barg
    vs.



    Imogen Kurtz
    Imogen Kurtz
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 11:35:42PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Good, Sam 12/26/2014, Greening Forward, “Nuclear Power: The Good, The Bad, and the Beautiful”, page number unknown, http://greeningforward.org/nuclear-power-the-good-the-bad-and-the-beautiful/

    Conca, James 11/07/2017, Forbes, “Pollution Kills More People Than Anything Else”, page number unknown, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/11/07/pollution-kills-more-people-than-anything-else/amp/?client=safari

    Spring Power and Gas 12/5/2018, Spring Power and Gas, “The Pros & Cons of Nuclear Energy: Is it safe?”, page number unknown, https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/

    Posted at May 19, 2020 09:37:51PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Ucsusa.org/resources/brief-history-nuclear-accidents-worldwide
    History.com/news/history’s-worst-nuclear-disasters
    Cen.aca.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/nuclear-power-prevents-deaths-cases.html
    Nei.org/home
    Large.stanford.edu/sources/2016/ph241/

    Posted at May 21, 2020 12:49:53AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Good, Sam 12/26/2014, Greening Forward, “Nuclear Power: The Good, The Bad, and the Beautiful”, page number unknown, http://greeningforward.org/nuclear-power-the-good-the-bad-and-the-beautiful/

    The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2/13/2009, Encyclopædia Britannica “Typhoon Nina-Bingqiao dam failure”, page number unknown, https://www.britannica.com/event/Typhoon-Nina-Banqiao-dam-failure

    Ervin, Dr. Elizabeth K. Fall 2009, Ole Miss, “Nuclear Energy: Statistics”, page 23, http://home.olemiss.edu/~cmchengs/Global%20Warming/Session%2017%20Nuclear%20Energy%20-%20Statistics/Nuclear%20Energy.pdf

    large.stanford.edu April 2012, “Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits — Current and Future”, page 2, http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/may2/docs/nei-apr12.pdf

    History.com Editors 4/24/2019, History, “Chernobyl: Disaster, Response, Fallout”, page number unknown, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/1980s/chernobyl

    World Nuclear Association, March 2020, “Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste”, page number unknown, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx

    Mosher, Dave 2/13/2017, “California’s dam crisis highlights the surprisingly deadly history of hydroelectric power”, page number unknown, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.in/californias-dam-crisis-highlights-the-surprisingly-deadly-history-of-hydroelectric-power/amp_articleshow/57136400.cms

    Posted at May 21, 2020 10:01:06PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    History.com/news/history’s-worst-nuclear-disasters
    Internationalrivers.org/resources/the-forgotten-legacy-of-the-banqiao-dam-collapse-7821

    Posted at May 22, 2020 11:15:44PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Brzezinski, Matthew 09/03/2000, New York Times, “The Silver Lining of Chernobyl’s Cloud”, https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/03/magazine/the-silver-lining-in-chernobyl-s-cloud.html

    Dare to Think (date unknown), Dare to Think, “The perspective of molten salt reactors”, https://www.daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of-uranium-and-thorium-last/

    Author and Date not provided, Energy Informative, “Solar Energy Pros and Cons” (there are also links there for hydro, geo, and wind energy Pros and cons), https://energyinformative.org/solar-energy-pros-and-cons/#associated-with-pollution

    This is the citation for economic benefits that was also in my other rebuttal:
    large.stanford.edu April 2012, “Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits — Current and Future”, page 2, http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/may2/docs/nei-apr12.pdf

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 24, 2020 10:46:55AM EST by Dan Weiser

    Category Margaret Barg Imogen Kurtz
    Use of evidence: 5 5
    Delivery skill: 5 4.9
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.5
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Margaret - You did a nice job in this debate. Ultimately i think you give too much leeway to your opponent - you make arguments for her, and agree with them and the mitigating you attempt to do in your bringing them up is not particularly compelling. I would either not bring up the issues with your side, not agree with your opponent, or have rock star responses that kick those arguments out of the ball park. I think if you brought thorium up clearly earlier in the debate - maybe the rebuttal - you had a shot at getting this round won. Nice job in this debate. I did struggle a bit because i do not feel like you painted a clear and coherent picture for me to vote on. Your opponent chips away at your arguments enough and your responses were not on point enough to really make the vote easy. I felt like you were winning most of the arguments but did not clean it up when she was pushing back - particularly with the dam. If you say they learned their lesson the same can be said about the nuclear incidents. Also. I think you offer too many renewable alternatives, giving her a lot of ground to argue against any of them. Maybe just pick one or two alternatives so limit the amount of options your opponent has to attack you.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Imogen Kurtz

    Reason for Decision:

    I found this debate somewhat difficult to judge. Both of you went for a range of different arguments - many of which were refuted by the opponent. I dont think either of you gave a clear and coherent story in the end of really where i should be voting. So I had to dig a bit deeper. The first issue is that the word thorium was not used in the debate before the last minute of the last speech. I rewatched the other speeches and every time the proposition spoke you just referred to "nuclear power" and all the evidence was related to uranium - to pull thorium out at the last minute to prove it will last forever is a bit tough to evaluate as your opponent did not have the opportunity to refute. The initial rebuttal had no response on the point that nuclear power wont last forever. So I do lean towards the opposition - why should we use nuclear power if it is dangerous and wont last forever. the proposition fully agrees that storage is dangerous and expensive. So at that point i am not in favor of mining and burning a bunch of nuclear material for 80 years that will need to be stored indefinitely and is dangerous and expensive to do so. It seems to me the opposition did a good enough job stating we need a range of renewables all of which are safer and cleaner.


    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