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: Bray Krumenacker (Homeschool) vs. Opposition: Imogen Kurtz (Binghamton West Middle)

Judge: Arturo Feliz (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)

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

  • Bray Krumenacker
    Bray Krumenacker
    vs.



    Imogen Kurtz
    Imogen Kurtz
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 25, 2020 09:21:30PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 27, 2020 08:35:42AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Contagionlive.com/news/covid19-model-shows-travel-restrictions-work-but-testing-and-isolation-key

    Washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/23/just-how-bad-is-economy

    Ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

    Posted at May 27, 2020 09:50:25PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    Washington Post
    Time Magazine
    Los Angeles Times

    Posted at May 28, 2020 06:56:47PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    Politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/19/coronavirus-effect-economy-life-society-analysis-vivid-135579

    Advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/05/weekly-line

    En.wikipedia.org/Eleuthere_Irenee_du_Pont

    Irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/Syrian-refugees-unwanted-in-Germany-afraid-to-go-home-1.3978624

    Posted at May 29, 2020 09:05:40PM EST by Bray Krumenacker

    Citations

    Show

    Encyclopedia.com
    Harvard.edu
    Brookings.edu
    Businessinsider.com

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 31, 2020 02:05:37PM EST by Arturo Feliz

    Category Bray Krumenacker Imogen Kurtz
    Use of evidence: 2.4 2.2
    Delivery skill: 3 3
    Coherence of arguments: 2.4 2.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 1.6 1.6
    Identification of key points: 2.4 2.4
    Comments: Bray I feel you did a good job at driving the round to your arguments.

    You do need to work on your responsiveness to the opponent's arguments.

    You conflate immigrants with refugees but your opponent does not defend.

    I think your defense of COVID 19 is good and I buy it. It decided the round.
    Imogen I think you had this round on framework (conditionality) and with your two strongest arguments: Spread of disease for lack or screening and lack of criminal background checks.

    COVID 19 was a good way to illustrate but you made it your case.

    In your final speech you drop everything else and stick to your COVID 19. It think it's a poor choice and your opponent's defense is solid: This is an exceptional event.

    I'm not sure I buy any of the "they take our jobs" arguments.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Bray Krumenacker

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD I think the round boiled down to COVID 19. Opposition made this choice and proposition defends clearly with a logical argument.

    Opposition could have won this case by sticking to the framework and strongest arguments. But opposition drops these in closing speech.

    Proposition wins by extending some benefits. I feel proposition's arguments are weak, and weakly supported but opposition let's proposition get away with it.


    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