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: Ashley Marie Mandal (University of San Jose-Recoletos) vs. Opposition: HILARY FUNG (Po Leung Kuk Camoes Tan Siu Lin Primary School)

Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)

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

  • Ashley Marie Mandal
    Ashley Marie Mandal
    vs.



    HILARY FUNG
    HILARY FUNG
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 18, 2020 11:19:34PM EST by Ashley Marie Mandal

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/nuclear-energy-pros-cons/
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
    https://www.duke-energy.com/Energy-Education/How-Energy-Works/Nuclear-Power

    Posted at May 20, 2020 02:50:20AM EST by HILARY FUNG

    Citations

    Show

    https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/04/26/30-years-since-chernobyl-and-5-years-since-fukushima-what-have-we-learnt/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php

    https://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/nuclear-energy-pros-cons/

    Posted at May 20, 2020 10:41:00PM EST by Ashley Marie Mandal

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 22, 2020 05:49:04AM EST by HILARY FUNG

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.htm

    https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/4-clean-energy-alternatives-to-uranium.aspx

    http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

    https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/biomass_basics.pdf

    https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/questions/can-alternative-energy-effectively-replace-fossil-fuels/

    Posted at May 23, 2020 03:55:11AM EST by Ashley Marie Mandal

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 24, 2020 09:08:50AM EST by becca steiner

    Category Ashley Marie Mandal HILARY FUNG
    Use of evidence: 3.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: strengths: good volume, good hand gestures, good conversational rate of delivery/speed. good use of "even if" statements in speech 2. good eye contact in speech 2.
    places to improve: you can probably find more credible sources than wikipedia and the nuclear energy institute to support your points. try to improve eye contact in speech 1. the language choice of "mr. chair" was confusing. what does this mean? I am not familiar with this phrase. the volume in speech 1 was better than in speech 2 & 3.
    strengths: good volume, good emphasis of key words, good conversational speed/rate of delivery.
    places to improve: when you use outside research, make sure to give credit to your sources in the first speech. you should find a more credible source than alternate energy pro con.org to support your claims that solar and wind energy are good.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Ashley Marie Mandal

    Reason for Decision:

    this was a good debate https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif

    at the end of the debate the proposition's main points were that fossil fuels must be replaced, nuclear power could replace them, and nuclear power costs are low and the energy type is convenient since we already use it. the opposition's main points were that nuclear power could cause accidents/property damage and locating plants near major cities is an issue.

    I think both teams agreed that fossil fuels should be replaced. I wish the opposition team spent more time making the case for solar/wind/other energy types to replace fossil fuels. Perhaps beginning this argument in speech 1 would have helped. More evidence could be used to establish why solar and wind are better replacements than nuclear power. The pro team better argued that nuclear power and plants are already widespread, so I thought the risk of property damage/waste/accidents was either very low or inevitable.


    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