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: amelia poulin (University of Rochester) vs. Opposition: Ashley Mason (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Kancheng Wang (Binghamton University)

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

  • amelia poulin
    amelia poulin
    vs.



    Ashley  Mason
    Ashley Mason
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by amelia poulin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Ashley Mason

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by amelia poulin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Ashley Mason

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by amelia poulin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Kancheng Wang

    Category amelia poulin Ashley Mason
    Use of evidence: 4 3
    Delivery skill: 4 2.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 4.7
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: The Proposition has very good arguments and eloquently delivered them. The flow of the arguments are easy to follow. She made a good case that if we alienate lives psychologically, we could harm the animals and even other humans without thinking morally. actually do to the animals during research to show how cruel it could be There could be more descriptive evidence of what scientists to appeal to people's emotions. The speed of the speech could ideally slow down a little bit for people to follow better. The opposition did a good job of listing counter-arguments. It did a good job of saying "the benefit surpasses the cost". She also had a great argument that testing does not equal torturing and that animals could benefit too. These are excellent points to fight against proposition's arguments.
    But it does have some misses in arguments and could have structured the evidence or examples a little better. I felt it could go harder on the fundamental subject to show that "animals are not human". We kill them sometimes because they don't behave the way that benefit us. The proposition obviously want us to emphasize for the animals and you can do the opposite delicately. As for what could've strengthened the arguments, there could be empirical examples of things that we created through animal testing or statistical evidence of how dependent we are on animal testing.

    The decision is for the Proposition: amelia poulin

    Reason for Decision:

    Both did a great job of analyzing the subject. Thanks for both of your efforts.


    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