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: Katja Peller (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Alaina Owen (Grand Canyon University)

Judge: Amanda Jaret (Binghamton University)

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

  • Katja Peller
    Katja Peller
    vs.



    Alaina Owen
    Alaina Owen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Katja Peller

    Citations

    Show

    Gruen, Lori [Professor of Philosophy, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and
    Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University], "The Moral Status of Animals", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
    <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/moral-animal/>.

    Neal D. Barnard [Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University
    School of Medicine and Health Sciences] and Stephen R. Kaufman [Clinical Assistant Professor
    at both Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio University's College of
    Medicine], Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading, Scientific American, February 1997,
    pp. 80-82.

    Neal D. Barnard [Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University
    School of Medicine and Health Sciences] and Stephen R. Kaufman [Clinical Assistant Professor
    at both Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio University's College of
    Medicine], Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading, Scientific American, February 1997,
    pp. 80-82.

    Posted at N/A by Alaina Owen

    Citations

    Show

    [Susanne Kappeler, Associate Prof @ Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The Politics of Personal Behavior, 1995, pg 14]

    [Jayan Nayar, Law Student at the University of Warwick, Re-Framing International Law for the 21st Century: Orders of Inhumanity, 9 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 599, Fall 1999]

    Posted at N/A by Katja Peller

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Alaina Owen

    Citations

    Show

    No new EV

    Posted at N/A by Katja Peller

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Amanda Jaret

    Category Katja Peller Alaina Owen
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 3.3 3.9
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 5.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.7 5.9
    Identification of key points: 3.5 5.1
    Comments: Very good opening speech! I think you did a really nice job outlining your contentions and using evidence to support your claims. I think you may have gotten a bit confused by the opposition's kritik and speed, which is not your fault. You did a very good job responding to her argument, and I think you could easily have won the debate with just a bit more work explaining why your plan was better than her vague alternative. Thank you so much for all your hard work! Good luck! I think the kritik is really effective and identifies a tension in the proposition's argument (the first contention uses a deontological lens and the second uses a utilitarian logic). Calling attention to the tension was effective and gave you solvency for the underlying harm of violence against animals. You impacted the genocide claims well, too. Thank you for contextualizing the role of the ballot and for the clean line-by-line work. You might want to slow down at this tournament a bit- make sure you are not sacrificing clarity for speed. Excellent preparation and great arguments. Thank you so much. Good luck!

    The decision is for the Opposition: Alaina Owen

    Reason for Decision:

    As I mention in my video, I decided this round for three main reasons:

    (1) I think the opposition's kritik solves the underlying violence against animals that the proposition is trying to reduce. Because the kritik articulated how violent discourse is the root cause of violence generally, I think it better addresses the reason why we inflict violence, like animal testing, in the first place.

    (2) I think the opposition contextualizes the role of the ballot a bit more clearly.

    (3) The opposition is a bit more responsive to the proposition's arguments on the line-by-line.

    All things considered, though, this was a great debate round. The proposition's opening speech was excellent and demonstrated real knowledge of the subject and strong research. Thank you both for participating. I hope it has been an enlightening experience and that you will both stick with debate and keep working towards animal rights!

    Video from the judge:


    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