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: Kim-Ha Nguyen (PHT) vs. Opposition: Gabrielle Backman (Chenango Forks Middle School)

Judge: Arturo Feliz (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)

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

  • Kim-Ha Nguyen
    Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Gabrielle Backman
    Gabrielle Backman
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 17, 2020 11:22:04PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen



    Posted at May 19, 2020 06:59:10PM EST by Gabrielle Backman



    Posted at May 20, 2020 10:51:08PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 21, 2020 03:07:59PM EST by Gabrielle Backman



    Posted at May 22, 2020 11:55:14PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 23, 2020 06:26:14PM EST by Arturo Feliz

    Category Kim-Ha Nguyen Gabrielle Backman
    Use of evidence: 2.3 3
    Delivery skill: 2.5 2.7
    Coherence of arguments: 2.7 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 2.9
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Kim-Ha Good job at setting a framework and sticking to your main arguments.

    I think your case needed more impacts, and to go more in detail about your arguments. You need to warrant your claims.

    I liked how you responded to the poor countries claim with the example of North Korea. It may not be the strongest but shows you were paying attention and you responded.
    Gabrielle You do a good job at presenting you arguments. Your speech is clear, your pace is good.

    You use evidence properly, although you could use a bit more impact.

    I feel you made some very good points that I buy, but I'd like you to develop these ideas more.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD I feel that opposition could have won this round. You had it. You defended it well enough to take the round. Again, I would have liked to see more warranting and impacting, but in this round the defense you mounted should have been enough to take it. My problem is that the opposition case has no offense.

    You basically explain to me why I shouldn't go with nuclear but I hear no mention of fossil. You even grant in your closing that you are not standing for fossil (which is topical)

    You mention wind and solar briefly but don't develop this as the option I should vote for instead of nuclear. I'm not big on K's but I'm willing to hear it out. But I'm no sure I hear that.

    Generally a case requires that you both have good defense (turns, blocks) and offense (why your option is better)

    I'd summarize it like this. Even if I felt you almost completely take the pro case down, I have nothing from you to use to give you ballot.

    The prop has offensive and tells me of fossil fuels emissions (very briefly but it's there),and then offers nuclear.

    Opposition tells me nuclear is bad, but so is fossil, does not really give me a voter, just kind of casually mentions solar and wind.

    I think its a great learning round for both. You both have the potential of becoming great debaters. Keep practicing. Great debaters take LOTS of rounds and experience to develop. This is a great craft and you will develop amazing skills! Happy debating!

    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: