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: sid singh (Homeschool) vs. Opposition: Jake Farrell (Westview High School)

Judge: Isaac Liu (Liberty University)

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

  • sid singh
    sid singh
    vs.



    Jake Farrell
    Jake Farrell
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 19, 2020 09:16:08AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 20, 2020 12:49:39AM EST by Jake Farrell

    Citations

    Show

    https://schlissel-technical.com/docs/reports_35.pdf
    https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

    Posted at May 21, 2020 07:15:04AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 22, 2020 12:11:40AM EST by Jake Farrell

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 23, 2020 09:53:01AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 24, 2020 01:15:54PM EST by Isaac Liu

    Category sid singh Jake Farrell
    Use of evidence: 2 3
    Delivery skill: 4 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3
    Identification of key points: 3 3.1
    Comments: I love the delivery and speaking style. There are, as always, a few things to improve on.

    The first thing to improve upon is impact analysis and argument organization. Every argument/contention has three parts:
    • uniqueness
    • impact
    • solvency


    Uniqueness describes what is happening in the status squo, or right now. In your case, it is that we are using fossil fuels right now. This is a given, especially with this resolution. No need to explain this, as it is implied in the resolution.

    Impact is why it matters. It can be good or bad, but as proposition, you want to argue that the status squo is bad. Although you had multiple arguments/contentions, one of them was climate change.

    Solvency is how your alternative/advocacy resolves the impact, i.e. in your case, how nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels.

    Each part is crucial to win the debate, but most important and most persuasive is solvency. The thing everyone cares about is why it matters. So focus more time in your speech on that.

    Furthermore, it would help to number your arguments. You had several arguments in this debate:
    • nuclear energy is more efficient
    • nuclear energy is safe
    • nuclear energy is the future
    • nuclear energy is more reliable
    • etc.


    It would be good to label this arguments and group similar ones together. For example, you could say:

    Argument 1: Safety
    Nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels.

    This would help keep your arguments clearer.

    The last thing you need to work on is evidence. You need to cite evidence for your arguments. You also need to reference those evidence for each argument. Say "according to [author]" or alternatively say "[authorlastname, year]".

    Otherwise, very good debate. I love the demeanor and the calm way you explain things.

    Good luck the rest of the tournament!
    I love the delivery and speaking style. The impact analysis was excellent -- especially on the devastating effects of radiation, even if the risk is low. There are, as always, a few things to improve on.

    The first suggestion is to number your arguments. You had several arguments in this debate:
    • nuclear waste is toxic
    • nuclear energy costs more
    • fossil fuels are established
    • nuclear energy prevents branching out to better sources
    • etc.


    It would be good to label this arguments and group similar ones together. For example, you could say:

    Argument 1: Radioactive waste
    Nuclear power produces radioactive waste which causes [insert bad thing].

    You also should not introduce new arguments in your final rebuttal. The argument about how switching away is not viable should be in the first speech. In the final speech, only summarize what you have said before and answer the points your opponent has made.

    The last thing you need to work on is evidence. You need to cite evidence for your arguments. You also need to reference those evidence for each argument. Say "according to [author]" or alternatively say "[authorlastname, year]".

    Otherwise, very good debate. I love the passion in how you explain things. The dog bit was persuasive as well.

    Good luck the rest of the tournament!

    The decision is for the Opposition: Jake Farrell

    Reason for Decision:

    I voted in opposition due to better impact analysis. Even though the risk of radioactive melt-down may be low, the consequences would be devastating. The final proposition speech was too defensive -- it needed to focus on the devastating effects of fossil fuels, not just answer opponents points.

    I could also easily vote in opposition as the proposition did not cite any evidence, but both sides need to work on evidence citation and argument organization. But both sides spoke effectively, and had unique speaking styles which I really enjoyed.

    Good debate, and good luck the rest of the tournament!


    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