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 26, 2020 12:59:31AM EST by Miranda Chiguma
Posted at May 26, 2020 02:44:07PM EST by Gabrielle Backman
Posted at May 27, 2020 11:00:46PM EST by Miranda Chiguma
My information is listed in order
Posted at May 28, 2020 07:09:26PM EST by Gabrielle Backman
Posted at May 30, 2020 01:33:08AM EST by Miranda Chiguma
My information is in order
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 08:53:26PM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Miranda Chiguma||Gabrielle Backman|
|Use of evidence:||5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.4||5.2|
|Identification of key points:||6||6|
|Comments:||for the first speech
strengths: volume, speed, vocal variety, rate of speaking/speed, clear stance on topic, clear points, clear organization of points
places to improve: you could expand the economic arguments to other countries besides the US with more outside research. all the sources you cited were credible, but you should include the date these pieces of research were published when you talk about them in the speech. you could improve your eye contact by looking at the camera/judge more often.
for the second speech
strengths: good identification of opponent arguments and making a direct response. good new research to help support points. good volume and rate of speaking/speed.
places to improve: in the first speech, you used examples of many countries such as syria, south sudan, and the US. in this speech you narrowed to only the US, but why not recall the other countries? it might be a good idea to discuss why the US is prepared to take in a large number of legal refugees at one time. this may help address the opponent's concern that too many refugees coming into a country at one time would be disorganized.
for the third speech
strengths: good identification of opponent arguments and direct refutation. good outside research. good organization.
places to improve: this speech your rate of speaking seemed hurried and rushed to fit in the time. the rate/speed was much better in the first two speeches.
|for the first speech
strengths: vocal variety, eye contact, speed/rate of speaking.
places to improve: it would be helpful to use more examples of other countries besides the United States in this speech. Are other countries perhaps even less equipped to take an influx of new refugees? a few times during the speech there were some longer-than-needed pauses. this can be fixed by more practice with your speech in advance.
for the second speech
strengths: vocal variety and eye contact continue to be major strengths of this speech. good to capitalize on overcrowding argument, I thought this was under-covered in the proposition's 2nd speech.
places to improve: it is helpful that you researched and took a position on what types of conditions should be in place for legal refugees as an alternative to unconditional acceptance of all legal refugees. rather than saving this until the last minute of the speech, I would put this information in the very first part of the speech when you sort of restate the resolution/topic and reaffirm your stance as the opposition. or, you could also consider using time in the first constructive to propose some possible conditions instead of unconditional acceptance. the last minute of your final speech seems a bit "too little too late." in addition, since many of your arguments were about overcrowding the system, you might want to say that one of your conditions is a cap where only a certain number of refugees are allowed per year per country. that way, you would avoid the negative consequences of allowing in too many people at one time which you said may hurt health care and education systems.
The decision is for the Proposition: Miranda Chiguma
Reason for Decision:
This was a very good debate
At the end of the debate I thought the most important points from the proposition were that a large number of refugees from many countries need safety immediately from political problems or starvation/famine/drought and refugees have the potential to improve the economies of nation states who accept them.
I thought the most important points from the opposition were that conditional entry for refugees is a better system than unconditional entry, and that overcrowding nation states with too many refugees at one time can create negative consequences such as a strain on the US health care system.
In the end I decided to vote for the proposition team because I thought they did a better job explaining why placing conditions denies too many people refuge from dangerous political and social situations and that placing conditions is not necessary because due to the number of possible hosts/nation states, the world can share refugees so that no one country takes in too many that it would overburden health care and education systems.
I think the debate was very close and could see myself voting for the opposition if the conditions were elaborated on in the first speech, so that more debate between both teams could occur on that issue. Or if in the second speech the opposition had more concrete ideas for how many refugees would likely be let into the US or other countries with the conditions being advocated for here.