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 Dorfman (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Vivek Chaudhary (University of Washington Bothell)

Judge: Carlos Varela (University of Vermont)

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

  • Jacob Dorfman
    Jacob Dorfman
    vs.



    Vivek Chaudhary
    Vivek Chaudhary
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Dorfman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Vivek Chaudhary

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Dorfman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Vivek Chaudhary

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Dorfman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Carlos Varela

    Category Jacob Dorfman Vivek Chaudhary
    Use of evidence: 2.4 1.6
    Delivery skill: 3.4 2
    Coherence of arguments: 4 2.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 3.6
    Identification of key points: 4 3.7
    Comments: 1) Topicality is not an issue in this debate. There was too much substantial clash on the issues to claim an unfair or "un-educational" impacts.

    2) I am convinced that there is a moral conviction to act; ie hurting/testing on animals is not tolerable for Status Quo. Both, the Opposition's Counterplan, and Proposition advocacy, both recognize moral imperative.

    3) Testing is statistically not-reliable. 9/10 fail (with citation provided by the Prop.) Prop does just enough, to convince me that it is more likely to achieve practical benefits, than with counterplan.

    Since morality was advocated and recognized by both, it became a competition of who is more practical. This part of the debate was crucial to the debate, and yet both sides lacked specific arguments on how each side could solve the most practical benefits. I don't see how op saves more lives when 9/10 experiments fail and are not reliable. In the end, I was slightly more convinced by the prop.

    4) Also, despite no discussion of what alternatives there are, I really have no solid reason to believe there aren't any, as the Prop claimed. PROP: A good argument to have here would be "Medical experts, agree, animal testing not necessary" "Scientist advocate for other, more reliable, means of scientific research."

    (OPOSITION: This would have been a good piece of evidence to have; something that describes the necessity of testing. Something along the lines of: "Only Animal Testing Can Solve" or "Animal Testing is the Only Solution").

    Prop: You are a little block-heavy. Use the blocks and insert them into your speech, but it is more effective to use the flow and the backbone of your speech, not the blocks.
    1) Topicality is not an issue in this debate. There was too much substantial clash on the issues to claim an unfair or "un-educational" impacts.

    2) I am convinced that there is a moral conviction to act; ie hurting/testing on animals is not tolerable for Status Quo. Both, the Opposition's Counterplan, and Proposition advocacy, both recognize moral imperative.

    3) Testing is statistically not-reliable. 9/10 fail (with citation provided by the Prop.) Prop does just enough, to convince me that it is more likely to achieve practical benefits, than with counterplan.

    Since morality was advocated and recognized by both, it became a competition of who is more practical. This part of the debate was crucial to the debate, and yet both sides lacked specific arguments on how each side could solve the most practical benefits. I don't see how op saves more lives when 9/10 experiments fail and are not reliable. In the end, I was slightly more convinced by the prop.

    4) Also, despite no discussion of what alternatives there are, I am forced to understand that alternatives exist.

    (OPPOSITION: This would have been a good piece of evidence to have; something that describes the necessity of testing. Something along the lines of: "Only Animal Testing Can Solve" or "Animal Testing is the Only Solution").

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jacob Dorfman

    Reason for Decision:

    Topicality was not considered.

    Both sides agreed on morality.

    In the light of a moral perogative, a counterplan that only removes cosmetic testing seems piecemeal and ineffective way of truly solving that status quo harm.

    The proposition solves for the moral imperative, by banning testing, and establishes that when testing is done, it is of little scientific value (9/10 fail etc...)


    3 Comments

    Thank You Vivek for a great round and to Carlos for your comments--I will definitely take what you said into consideration for the next round!
    - Jacob Dorfman on April 24, 2013 at 02:43PM EST
    One quick question for the judge... you mentioned a citation on the point of 9/10 animal testing... However when I click show citations on any of the videos it does not appear..

    Did I misread your comment?
    - Vivek Chaudhary on April 24, 2013 at 02:28AM EST
    Congratulations to my opponent Jacob Dorfman... thanks for taking the time to participate in this debate.

    Thnak you very much Judge Varela, I appreciate your feedback on how I did in the round. ( I am always interested in ways that I can improve my debating ability)

    Thanks to Binghamton University for hosting the tournament! - Vivek Chaudhary on April 24, 2013 at 02:23AM EST

    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