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: Daniel Santos (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Ruchi Agashe (NEI Education)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Daniel Santos
    Daniel Santos
    vs.



    Ruchi Agashe
    Ruchi Agashe
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2014 01:02:14PM EST by Daniel Santos

    Citations

    Show

    Taylor, Sunaura. "Beasts of Burden: Disability Studies and Animal Rights."Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 19.2 (2011): 191-222. Print.

    Craig, Winston J., and Ann Reed Mangels. "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets." Journal of the American Dietetic Association109.7 (2009): 1266-1282.

    Stanton, Maureen. "Meat: What's Not for Dinner." Fourth Genre: Explorations in Nonfiction 8.2 (n.d.): 171-74. Web.

    Hawthorne, Mark. "Inside the Life of a Factory Farm Worker." VegNews. N.p., 01 May 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=5732&catId=1>.

    Posted at October 14, 2014 10:53:05PM EST by Ruchi Agashe

    Citations

    Show


    http://www.naturalnews.com/024362_pesticide_bees_bayer.html


    http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y8344e/y8344e08.htm

    Posted at October 16, 2014 08:55:30AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 17, 2014 01:59:40AM EST by Ruchi Agashe

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 17, 2014 07:18:57PM EST by Daniel Santos

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 28, 2014 10:22:59AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Daniel Santos Ruchi Agashe
    Use of evidence: 4.3 3.8
    Delivery skill: 5 3.9
    Coherence of arguments: 5 2.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.3
    Identification of key points: 4.9 3.5
    Comments: Good job starting with defining what you mean by this house and focusing the debate on ethics. I like how you pre-empt a bunch of arguments while laying out why not eating meat is more ethical (ie sentience / intelligence claims). You could do a better job at explaining how the debate should be framed by defining what "ethical is".

    You should provide the website site for your PETA source in this speech or say that the citation is provided elsewhere. Good job on ending your speech strong with how you frame the resolution and why you win.
    Animals dying is not an impact if animals dying is inevitable, especially given that the animals are produced for slaughter. You should start by defining ethics and creating points of contention for why it is unethical. You should have led with your reformism argument. The end of your first speech is good but I would have led with that and then made your defensive arguments.

    You need to do a better job on describing why it's not more ethical. The prop doesn't necessarily force/fiat people into not eating meat, which means he doesn't necessarily prevent people's choice. You should have a heavier focus on your relativity argument, especially give the definition of the house.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Daniel Santos

    Reason for Decision:

    I think the way the proposition defines this house makes it difficult for the opposition to win most of her arguments, which are based upon people not in first world economically stable environments. I think the opp's relativity argument would be good otherwise. I think a procedural argument / counter interpretation of how this house should be defined would help the opposition a lot in the round. Absent that it seems like the prop doesn't force people to stop eating meat universally but advocates it as being more ethical; even if not everyone should make the change. A better conversation over "ethical" could have also potentially resolved this problem as well.


    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