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 McFarland (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Phillip Yuen (Binghamton University)

Judge: Matthew Geyer (Georgetown University)

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

  • Matthew McFarland
    Matthew McFarland
    vs.



    Phillip Yuen
    Phillip Yuen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Matthew McFarland

    Citations

    Show

    03/2009, HumaneSociety.org, "The HSUS Investigates Primate Use at the
    New Iberia Research Center (NIRC)
    New Iberia, Louisiana," page 3, http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/animals_laboratories/case_report-hsus_undercover_investigation_new_iberia_research_center_march_2009.pdf

    Posted at N/A by Phillip Yuen

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/assets/document/67263C9E-E007-2486-02CEC292C0BBF97D/nine-out-of-ten-stat.pdf

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6192603/ns/health-arthritis/t/report-vioxx-linked-thousands-deaths/#.UXAn0bXvtSk

    http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

    Posted at N/A by Matthew McFarland

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Phillip Yuen

    Citations

    Show

    http://cfhs.ca/research/alternatives_to_animal_testing/

    Posted at N/A by Matthew McFarland

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Matthew Geyer

    Category Matthew McFarland Phillip Yuen
    Use of evidence: 3.3 4.3
    Delivery skill: 3.4 3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.9 5.3
    Identification of key points: 3.7 4.1
    Comments: You did a great job of picking out relevant evidence, however, I would have liked you to go into a bit more detail on some of your key points. You did a great job responding to some of your opponents key points as well. In terms of presentation, I think you need to sound a bit more confident in your abilities. You have a great skill and I think you will sound much more assertive if you are more enthusiastic about your arguments. Overall, great job and best of luck in the future! Congrats! You performed very well and I was impressed by the depth of your evidence and examples. Your arguments were well thought out and you responded nicely to your opponents key points. In terms of delivery, I would like to see you slow down a bit and speak more clearly. A lot of your points seemed a bit rushed and you sounded at times like you we're racing through too fast. I would instead cut your arguments down a bit and focus on a few key points. Overall, great job and best of luck to you in the next round!

    The decision is for the Opposition: Phillip Yuen

    Reason for Decision:

    See comments above. Overall, I believe that the opposition's arguments were more well-developed and thought out. He went more in depth into his arguments, which made his overall argument stronger.


    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