Judge: Jonathan Zaikowski (Wake Forest University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans
Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Jonathan Zaikowski
|Category||Brandon Evans||Samantha Earley|
|Use of evidence:||5||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||4|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||3|
|Comments:||Nice use of evidence, and good speaking - you were quick and clear. I assume that you made theory arguments because you're aware that I have a policy background - if not, though, I'd advise in general that you not make those arguments, especially with a lay judge. I don't think you'll get much sympathy on "no new arguments" when your opponent only has 2 speeches.||I felt like your last speech was a lot of quoting, but not much debating. You made important claims (like non-human animals are actually key), but didn't really interact with a lot of the specific claims made by the proposition about why humans are just as good, or why false-positives aren't a big concern.
I did really like your argument about what, exactly, a "test" is, and advocating a more specific ban on testing. Had you made that argument in your second speech and responded to the propositions claims, you would have been in a good place I think.
The decision is for the Proposition: Brandon Evans
Reason for Decision:
I voted for the proposition because of the almost uncontested false-positives and alternate options arguments. Even if the ethics debate goes entirely to the opposition, it's still best for humans to not conduct these tests on non-human animals. Although I think the evidence on false-positives isn't that stellar (it even says "concerns over this drug trial should also not be seen as signalling wholesale problems with animal testing"), and there's not much specific analysis about how these alternates function, the only response I have from the opposition is the assertion that animals are key without any explanation of why they're key.
The opposition's ethics arguments were late-breaking, and in a lot of ways not really responsive to the proposition. You both agree that suffering should be minimized, the only point of disagreement is whose suffering. Had I been forced to evaluate the ethics debate, I would have still voted for the proposition, but it would have been much closer. I feel at the end of the debate both sides have done a good job ridiculing the others' position - one person's views would have me saving two drowning rats rather than a baby, the other draws arbitrary lines about what is/is not deserving of rights. The tie-breaker for me was the genocide arguments, since if my privileging of humans over non-human animals will cause genocides (both human and non-human), then the best thing for humans would still be to treat all animals equally.
Good debate everyone, I've never judged an online debate before but it was fun. I hope you both make it to elims, and that I see you again.