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: Jacob Gelman (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Najat Khidir (University of Washington Bothell)

Judge: Robert Glass (Mamaroneck High School)

Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.

  • Jacob Gelman
    Jacob Gelman
    vs.



    Najat Khidir
    Najat Khidir
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Gelman

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf Christopher Anderegg, M.D., Ph.D.
    Kathy Archibald, B.Sc.
    Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D.
    Murry J. Cohen, M.D.
    Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
    John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC92200/

    http://www.peta.org/

    Posted at N/A by Najat Khidir

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Gelman

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/animal-welfare/research-teaching/factsheets/aw-fact01

    Posted at N/A by Najat Khidir

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Gelman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Robert Glass

    Category Jacob Gelman Najat Khidir
    Use of evidence: 2 2
    Delivery skill: 2.5 2
    Coherence of arguments: 3 1.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 1
    Identification of key points: 3 1.5
    Comments: Good delivery, better clash with your opponent and spotting her arguments like the CP while challenging whether or not it could actually solve for Anthropocentrism would probably help to resolve this debate quicker. You need better clash with the opponent, to challenge the warrants of his argument, and to explain your counter-plan better in the earlier speech.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jacob Gelman

    Reason for Decision:

    Counter-plan is not competitive with the plan, and there is no other Con offense against the proposition for me to vote one.
    "Finding the right balance" needs a further explanation as to why there needs to be a balance in the first place, and the economy DisAd to the Proposition needs to have further impact analysis and reasoning why it outweighs the Prop's moral impacts.Finally, opposition doesn't answer claims that there are A. viable human subjects for testing now and B. that animal testing is inefficient.


    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