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: Maria Perez (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons) vs. Opposition: Bray Krumenacker (Homeschool)

Judge: Peter Beadle (Binghamton University)

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

  • Maria Perez
    Maria Perez
    vs.



    Bray Krumenacker
    Bray Krumenacker
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 26, 2020 02:46:33AM EST by Maria Perez

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 26, 2020 09:59:42PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    PBS.org
    History.com

    Posted at May 27, 2020 10:56:13PM EST by Maria Perez

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 28, 2020 08:36:30PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    UN.org

    Posted at May 29, 2020 04:38:00AM EST by Maria Perez

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 30, 2020 09:09:05AM EST by Peter Beadle

    Category Maria Perez Bray Krumenacker
    Use of evidence: 5.2 4.8
    Delivery skill: 5.5 4.8
    Coherence of arguments: 5.2 4.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 4.2
    Identification of key points: 5.1 4.2
    Comments: Constructive is well structured, frames the debate to come and give yous a good base to start from. You also deliver it very well.

    Rebuttal: Your point by point refutation of the arguments made by the opposition is strong and well delivered. You handle the Turkey challenge especially well.

    Closing: you could have had a stronger refutation to your opponent's arguments here, but you are able to extend your economic impacts and flip your opponent's argument by arguing that allowing unconditional refugee acceptance would better help share the burden between nations.
    Constructive: good constructive that puts out some stronger counters to the Proponant, but you had 1:15 left at the end, and this time should have been used to introduce your alternatives argument. Also missed opporunity to point out much of proponent's economic benefit cards are US-centric and do not carry over to the rest of the world - your Africa and Turkey arguments would dovetail with that well and could have been developed even more.

    Rebuttal: Your argument that it would be better to address underlying problems is strong and the right one to make, but its new in a rebuttal and would have benefited from more development if introduced earlier. Making this argument in the rebuttal means your opponent has the last word

    The decision is for the Proposition: Maria Perez

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good round but there are some missed opportunities to develop arguments on both sides as I discuss in the attached video. By the end of the round the Proposition has succeeded in establishing there are economic benefits to allowing unconditional refugee admission as well as moral justifications, which satisfy the opening framework that was never contested by the opponent. Though there may be reason to believe there is a better alternative, this does not get fully developed. hence I vote for the Proposition.

    Video from the judge:


    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