Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 25, 2020 10:08:47PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at May 26, 2020 11:14:17PM EST by Jake Farrell
Posted at May 27, 2020 10:45:41PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 28, 2020 11:43:15PM EST by Jake Farrell
Posted at May 29, 2020 10:47:47PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 31, 2020 10:33:27AM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Seralena Leeson-Schatz||Jake Farrell|
|Use of evidence:||4||4.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||5|
|Identification of key points:||6||6|
|Comments:||for the first speech
strengths: the rate of speaking sounded very conversational. that is great! it makes the speech easy to listen to when it does not sound rehearsed and it makes you sound more sincere and genuine. the volume was also good. good job offering a little more information about your authors to show they are credible.
places to improve: I notice the resolution/topic uses the word "refugee" but you use the terms immigrant, refugee, and asylum seeker during your speech. maybe you could explain if these words mean all the same thing or if they are 3 different meanings.
for the second speech
strengths: volume, conversational speed/rate of speaking
places to improve: try to make more eye contact with the camera/audience. you might consider bringing in some outside research in this speech. try to experiment with hand gestures rather than keeping your hand in one place during the whole speech.
for the third speech
strengths: vocal variety, enthusiasm, confidence, rate of speaking/speed
places to improve: the lighting was very dark in this video. it was hard to see your face. if possible it would be helpful to film the video in a room with more lights. it would be helpful to read the definition you had for refugee in the very first speech.
|for the first speech
strengths: volume, eye contact, speed/rate of speaking, organized points, good transitions between points
places to improve: the extended hypothetical example is a good way to gain attention quickly from the audience, but it might be a little too long for how short the speech is and since the opposition team only gets 2 speeches compared to the proposition's 3 speeches. it is good to point out that your opponent mentioned illegal immigrants, but maybe you could explain what the difference is between the words illegal immigrant, legal immigrant, illegal refugee, or legal refugee. that would help develop your argument for why the opponent is not discussing the exact prompt.
for the second speech
strengths: good volume, good conversational rate/speed of delivery, good hand gestures
places to improve: when you mention your opponent did not read any evidence in the second speech, this would be a good time to remind the judge about the sources you previously used. who were your authors? why were they credible sources? that way you develop the argument that your opponent did not read any evidence and you read very good evidence. when you mention that unconditional entry is not the solution, you might be able to talk about other possible alternatives. for example, in the first speech you brought up the idea that the US and other wealthy countries could send money directly to countries in need rather than take refugees. do you want to advance that idea? or perhaps you could say that there should be conditions on how many legal refugees countries can accept per year. or maybe other conditions you could research.
The decision is for the Opposition: Jake Farrell
Reason for Decision:
This was a good debate
At the end of the debate the most important points from the proposition was that unconditional entry for legal refugees is the most moral/ethical thing to do for people in need.
The most important points from the opposition were that the unconditional nature of legal refugee entry will overburden nation states who are not well equipped to handle a large amount of new people entering their countries, including putting a strain on the economy and ability for countries to provide healthcare to both citizens and new refugees.
This was a tough debate to resolve because I personally believe unconditional entry is the more moral and ethical option, but I agree with the opposition team that many of the points made in the proposition speech were not supported by evidence or other forms of support such as historical examples, analogies, or other forms of reasoning. The opposition team read evidence that when certain nation states have agreed to take in too many legal refugees, it was worse economically and worse from a health care and quality of life perspective for both the natives and new refugees who entered the new country. the proposition said that Asia is a large continent and some countries are well equipped to support newcomers, but the team with better support for their claims was the opposition. in short, I voted for the opposition because I was persuaded unconditional entry was not the solution, even though the refugee crisis is a big problem.