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: Dan Klinger (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Deion Davis (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Resolved: This house believes that being a vegetarian is a better ethical choice than meat eating.

  • Dan Klinger
    Dan Klinger
    vs.



    Deion  Davis
    Deion Davis
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 7, 2014 01:05:40AM EST by Dan Klinger

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 8, 2014 02:30:35AM EST by Deion Davis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 9, 2014 12:28:02AM EST by Dan Klinger

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 12:12:26AM EST by Deion Davis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 06:53:55PM EST by Dan Klinger

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 11, 2014 09:03:34AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Dan Klinger Deion Davis
    Use of evidence: 2 2
    Delivery skill: 3.3 3.3
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 3.6
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.7
    Comments: Provide citations for your arguments. Also explain what health reasons have to do with ethics. Where are you getting your numbers and percentages from? You need sources.

    You need to better answer the argument that there are ethical meat that can be bought. You need to show why that's irrelevant otherwise it's not wholesale unethical to eat meat.

    Try to have more energy when you speak.
    Try to speak with more excitement in your voice instead of being so monotone. Weigh utilitarian concerns, such as pesticides, against the deontological impacts of the prop.

    What is the terminal impact to pesticides argument? Be clearer on that and weigh that against the biggest impacts of the prop. You should argue that the "pests" being killed are still animals so being vegetarian still kills them.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Deion Davis

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition doesn't give enough offense in his last speech to convince me it's more ethical since what's ethical is sort of left up in the air. The opposition wins the argument that a shift to vegetarianism would cause an increase use of pesticides (even in the world of small farms) which would be destructive. The prop should give a more cohesive argument in response to that and/or turn the argument in order to show the amount of pesticides and hormones that go into meat production that makes it destructive. Both sides should speak with more energy and both sides would benefit from global framing of the topic. Show the forest, not just the trees.


    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