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: Alexis Drozdowski (Binghamton West Middle) vs. Opposition: Bray Krumenacker (Homeschool)

Judge: Erin Bruni Suzuki (Shorin Global)

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

  • Alexis Drozdowski
    Alexis Drozdowski
    vs.



    Bray Krumenacker
    Bray Krumenacker
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 19, 2020 01:15:19PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 19, 2020 05:58:35PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    History.com
    eia.gov

    Posted at May 20, 2020 11:28:03PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 21, 2020 05:52:53PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    Just energy.com
    Resilience.org

    Posted at May 22, 2020 09:59:41PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 24, 2020 05:55:13AM EST by Erin Bruni Suzuki

    Category Alexis Drozdowski Bray Krumenacker
    Use of evidence: 4 4.4
    Delivery skill: 4.6 4.6
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 4.3
    Identification of key points: 3.7 4.2
    Comments: The initial points you present about global warming, cost, and fossil fuels dwindling are strong. Your opponent presents strong evidence of the cost of human lives to counter your points about global warming. Please extend your argument further. How many lives are lost to global warming and PM ? You present convincing evidence about the low probability of nuclear accidents and the advancement of technology. Please provide more evidence supporting this assertion. You effectively examine the cost of human lives and engage with your opponent on multiple levels. In particular, the focus on cost of human lives was particularly effective. I feel like there was a lack of comparison about lives lost to global warming versus lives lost to nuclear power accidents. Also, please engage further on your opponents assertion that technology is advancing and therefore the probability of accidents are decreasing.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Bray Krumenacker

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for Opposition in this debate.
    My reasoning is as follows:

    Environmental Cost:
    The Prop starts strong with evidence of how fossil fuels are causing global warming, PM emissions, and so on. However Opposition comes back and tells us of the environmental cost of nuclear waste and accidents, making land inhabitable for 100s of years. Opposition wins this clash.

    Human Lives:
    There was significant evidence provided by the Opposition about how nuclear accidents and contamination harm human lives. Proposition does engage by telling us that accidents are not likely to happen, and that PM emissions also take lives. In the end, Opposition provides more evidence and reasoning why nuclear energy is dangerous.

    Cost:
    Proposition provides us evidence that nuclear power is economical. Opposition counters this with evidence of the Nuclear Energy Association, stating that the cost of running a nuclear power plant is actually high. I heard little extension from Proposition on this, and also gave this clash to opposition.

    Public support:
    I did not weight this issue highly. Proposition provides evidence, Opposition provides counter-evidence. I am not convinced which evidence to buy. Please provide deeper analysis and explain why public opinion is important in this issue.

    Fuel:
    I feel like this is a slight win for Proposition. Proposition provides solid evidence about how fossil fuel resources will not last and how nuclear fuel can be recycled. Opposition provides an alternative solution abut green living and renewable energy. I still feel like this clash is sort of unresolved, as there is no direct engagement. Opposition comes back with the danger to human lives.

    In the end, I am convinced that the danger to human lives presented by nuclear power is a crucial risk, as Opposition explains, and I vote for opposition.


    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