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 09:05:33PM EST by Matthew Klang
The Genome Sequence of Taurine Cattle: A Window to Ruminant Biology and Evolution
The Bovine Genome Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, Christine G. Elsik, Ross L. Tellam, and Kim C. Worley
Science 24 April 2009
Posted at October 7, 2014 11:42:00PM EST by Shayne Wells
Posted at October 8, 2014 09:20:52PM EST by Matthew Klang
Posted at October 9, 2014 08:53:49PM EST by Shayne Wells
Posted at October 10, 2014 11:42:16PM EST by Matthew Klang
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 12, 2014 03:40:50PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Matthew Klang||Shayne Wells|
|Use of evidence:||3.4||3.4|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||You should have a clear definition of ethics so it's clear how you effectively affirm the topic. Also make your citations sound more legitimate in your speech or in the citation box. Ie qualify your sources. You could have a better closing to your opening speech.
I like your answer to universality. You do a very good job responding to your opponent. You could do a better job isolating your offense to frame the round.
Good job pointing out new arguments in the opposition rebuttal.
|I like your topicality argument but I think it's better deployed as a case turn where it shows that locational ethics is better than universal ethics, which turns the proposition. You should also spend more time on the ground/fairness arguments. You should also make your sources appear more legitimate and qualified than just copy-pasting the website.
You should have more on "this house" argument and have a definition of what it should be; as well as get back into your ground arguments if you want to advance the procedural argument. If you don't win that argument it can be easy for the prop to link out of a lot of your other offense.
The decision is for the Proposition: Matthew Klang
Reason for Decision:
I agree that a bunch of the arguments in the oppositions' second speech are new and should have been presented in the opening. That being said, I don't think the opp does a good enough job at showing why it is not more ethical even if the opp pokes some holes in the prop's argument. Ie it seems like it more ethical to not eat meat given the arguments in the round EVEN IF it might not be the most ethical choice in the world. The opp would be in better position if there was a better framing for the round / establishing a clearer role of the ballot. This could have happened either through (a) going for your topicality argument with the ground standard; or ( better explaining why one example of where it is unethical to not eat meat disproves the prop wholesale. Otherwise, it could be more ethical even if not perfectly ethical.