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: Matthew Klang (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Shayne Wells (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.

  • Matthew Klang
    Matthew Klang
    vs.



    Shayne Wells
    Shayne Wells
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 6, 2014 09:05:33PM EST by Matthew Klang

    Citations

    Show

    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

    http://eugenes.org/all/hgsummary.html

    http://www.chooseveg.com

    http://animaldeathcount.blogspot.com

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

    Posted at October 7, 2014 11:42:00PM EST by Shayne Wells

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.dailyimpact.net/2013/02/04/industrial-agriculture-losing-ground-faster/

    http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation

    http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/08/how-the-ethical-argument-fails.html

    http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077750,00.html

    Posted at October 8, 2014 09:20:52PM EST by Matthew Klang

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/08/how-the-ethical-argument-fails.html

    http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077750,00.html

    Posted at October 9, 2014 08:53:49PM EST by Shayne Wells

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/meat-without-murder/

    http://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/

    http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-agriculture/bee-killing-pesticides-kill-birds-too.html

    http://tiki.oneworld.net/pollution/poisonings.html

    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/

    Posted at October 10, 2014 11:42:16PM EST by Matthew Klang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    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
    Delivery skill: 4.6 4.1
    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 (http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/cool.gif 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.


    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