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: Anca Dogaroiu (Cornell University) vs. Opposition: Tim Keegan (Binghamton University)

Judge: Susan Worst (Wood River High School)

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

  • Anca Dogaroiu
    Anca Dogaroiu
    vs.



    Tim Keegan
    Tim Keegan
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anca Dogaroiu

    Citations

    Show

    The Belmont Report:
    http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html#xinform

    Posted at N/A by Tim Keegan

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.ox.ac.uk/animal_research/research_using_animals_an_overview/index.html

    Ack Botting and Adrian Morrison / 1997 / "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine" / http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf / (page 83)

    ColumbiaCruelty.com

    Posted at N/A by Anca Dogaroiu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Tim Keegan

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anca Dogaroiu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Susan Worst

    Category Anca Dogaroiu Tim Keegan
    Use of evidence: 3.3 4
    Delivery skill: 4.3 4.6
    Coherence of arguments: 2.8 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 3.9
    Identification of key points: 3.7 4.5
    Comments: You have a fluid and relaxed speaking style, especially in your Constructive speech. Well done.

    You ask me to assume early on that all lives are worth the same, but don't ever come back around to substantiating that, either through evidence or analytics. This is a problem that, for me, wasn't mitigated by your interesting and thoughtful comparisons to the Tuskegee study. If you had provided warrants in your first speech for your claim that human and animal lives are to be valued the same, it might have given you some ground to draw the comparison between research animals and the people in the study.
    Energetic delivery, though it was disappointing to have the discussion veer over into "Don't kill grandpa" territory. http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/disgusted.gif

    You did resort to personal attack toward the end, starting a downward trend in the level of discourse. ALSO YOU WERE SHOUTING.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Tim Keegan

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the opposition. The proposition's case was predicated entirely on the equal worth of every life, and that was never established through philosophy, evidence, or analytics. The opposition mitigates many of the harms caused by more frivolous examples of animal testing while stopping short of banning all of it. Not a perfect solution, but I judge it to be the best of the choices with which I am presented.

    Thank you both for your participation, and enjoy the rest of your week.


    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