Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: This house believes that being a vegetarian is a better ethical choice than meat eating.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 6, 2014 05:36:03PM EST by Billy Thompson
Volume 109, Issue 7, Pages 1266-1282 (July 2009) "Its About Eating Right" http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357
Ashley Capps "Why It's Unethical To Eat Animals" http://woodstocksanctuary.org/learn-3/why-its-unethical-to-eat-animals/
American Dietetic Association (2009) Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109: 1266-1282
Posted at October 7, 2014 11:32:48PM EST by Carolyn Sosa
Posted at October 8, 2014 05:48:31PM EST by Billy Thompson
Livestocks Long Shadow: environmental issues and options http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
Posted at October 10, 2014 01:46:40AM EST by Carolyn Sosa
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 10, 2014 06:19:54PM EST by Billy Thompson
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 10, 2014 09:24:09PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Billy Thompson||Carolyn Sosa|
|Use of evidence:||3||2.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.2||3.3|
|Identification of key points:||3.9||4|
|Comments:||You're clear but you're speaking potentially a little fast. Your citation quality could be a little better and you should introduce your authors in your speech by giving their qualifications instead of just their name. You pick good quotes though. I don't think your abortion and animal rights connection is a great one unless you get into it more.
You need to have a better defense of what "ethics" are. You just assert "ethics" without getting into the grittiness of it. Dictionary.com is not a great source when there is so much philosophy out there on it.
|You should have more citations in my opinion, such as philosophers who talk about the need to define ethics in debates over ethics. I also don't think that your topicality argument is the strongest on in this instance, ie California can be an example of the larger ethical choice. Your ground argument is good though. You should have more than just a procedural argument in my opinion. There are better arguments to negate this affirmative. Ie your free range argument could be developed more instead of developing your procedural argument.
You need to use more than 90 seconds of your closing speech in this format since the strength of your side is the length of your speeches. Your second speech is going for different arguments than your first one since the majority of your first one is on the procedural argument.
The decision is for the Proposition: Billy Thompson
Reason for Decision:
When the opposition doesn't extend the procedural argument and concedes the dictionary.com definition that ethics is determined by cultural conditions. That means even if in some situations it might not be more ethical in the context the proposition is going for it is ethical. The opposition should isolate more offense against the belief that ethics is problematic. Apart from that the water conservation impacts also get dropped. The proposition could do a better job explaining how utilitarianism is the way ethics should be determined.
Thanks for a good debate and make sure to use all your time in future debates. There's always something more to talk about.