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: Lindsey Hancock (Mercer University) vs. Opposition: Garrett Masada (CSU-Fullerton)

Judge: Jenn Geiss (Binghamton University)

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

  • Lindsey Hancock
    Lindsey Hancock
    vs.



    Garrett Masada
    Garrett Masada
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_76_updated-how-many-animals-are-used

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-26/health/bs-hs-animal-testing-20100826_1_animal-testing-animal-welfare-act-researchers

    http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/faqs.html#3

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada

    Citations

    Show

    Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Animal Experimentation Is Vital for Medical Research." Proud Achievements of Animal Research. Washington, DC: Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008.

    Cohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary." The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests

    http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_telechargement/13075/telechargement_fichier_en_infant_mortality_france.pdf

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada

    Citations

    Show

    Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Animal Experimentation Is Vital for Medical Research." Proud Achievements of Animal Research. Washington, DC: Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008.

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Jenn Geiss

    Category Lindsey Hancock Garrett Masada
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 5.5 2.5
    Coherence of arguments: 5 2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.7 2.5
    Identification of key points: 5.2 3
    Comments: Good flow and follow-through Run a DA from your contention that computers do not function correctly and that heavily relying on this alternative could lead to death, etc rather than just state it is ineffective as a way to argue against the Ads solvency. Tell me more why we shouldn't do plan! Instead your main argument is just that rats are no benefit to the human race. And how does making this argument fit in the scope of 'ethical'.

    Also, the argument you make about vaccines for animals comes in the rebuttal and should have been in the constructive and even used as a perm...animal testing good and animals ARE revelant...learning about them matters and ...is ethical.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Lindsey Hancock

    Reason for Decision:

    Thank you both for participating in the 1st online debate...hope you bother ejoyed!

    Lindsey followed through with her agruments and proposition Advantage 2 was never addressed.

    Need to address the flow!


    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