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: Chris Robertson (Bellevue College) vs. Opposition: Dhruv Sehgal (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Chris Robertson
    Chris Robertson
    vs.



    Dhruv Sehgal
    Dhruv Sehgal
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Chris Robertson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    http://books.google.com/books/about/Animal.html?id=ju2HL8Sd6SsC
    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/15/the-debate-should-testing-on-animals-be-banned/
    http://levmm1.wordpress.com/

    Posted at N/A by Chris Robertson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Chris Robertson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Chris Robertson Dhruv Sehgal
    Use of evidence: 2.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.8 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.7 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.1 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4.4
    Comments: I like how you frame your morality arguments. You should back up some of your claims with evidence though, as well as provide the cites for that evidence in the appropriate box so your opponent and judge can look them over. See if you can get rid of the echo in your recording for future rounds.

    Your analogies are good but you need evidence to back up your points as well. Conduct some research into animal testing both from a moral standpoint as well as from the question of its effectiveness.
    Good use of evidence (though it could be more qualified) and speaking voice. I'd go more into why emotions are bad / shouldn't get in the way of deciding animal testing. I'd also focus on utilitarianism being more important than the version of morality that the proposition relies upon.

    Stop relying on "he has no actual evidence" and answer the argument more directly, as well as using evidence yourself to respond to his un-evidenced claims.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Dhruv Sehgal

    Reason for Decision:

    Technically this round was decided by a forfeit. Absent that, however, I would still vote for the opposition because the opp is backed up by more evidence and research that shows (1) it's not torture (2) is essential to save lives (3) is moral from a utilitarian perspective. I think if the prop had more evidence and/or spent more time impacting out why deontology is more important than utilitarianism then this would be a different debate and much harder to decide. The analogies the prop deploys are good ones. I suggest reading Majorie Spiegel's "The Dreaded Comparison" to back up your points or the book "Eternal Treblinka" by Charles Patterson.


    1 Comment

    Awesome, thanks for the feedback! Much appreciated - Chris Robertson on April 24, 2013 at 02:28AM 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