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: Sam Burns (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Nick Julian (Newport High School)

Judge: Lauren Cameron (Binghamton University)

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

  • Sam Burns
    Sam Burns
    vs.



    Nick Julian
    Nick Julian
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Nick Julian

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Nick Julian

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Lauren Cameron

    Category Sam Burns Nick Julian
    Use of evidence: 3.5 4
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 5
    Identification of key points: 4 5
    Comments: More citations. Need reasons that ethics outweighs life, ie. why subjecting animals to a certain type of testing is wrong even if it can result in the death of others. See Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" for some evidence on this question. Great refutation, good arguments just synthesize around a central point a little better. You do a good job of analyzing your original arguments in the context of the proposition and extend them well, keep it up.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Nick Julian

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition does win that there is an unethical aspect to cruel non-human animal testing. However there is never a good response to the argument that the affirmative's burden is to win that all forms of animal testing are bad.

    The opposition provides several examples of types of testing that doesn't infringe rights, and also makes some compelling arguments regarding the necesity of animal testing absent a viable alternative.

    Neither side gives me very good impact analysis at the end of the debate, so I am left to presume that loss of life outweighs any small risk of an ethical violation, and thus at least some types of animal testing are allowable, meaning I vote for the opposition.

    Great debate y'all!


    2 Comments

    Thank you, Lauren. Nick tried to upload his citations, but for whatever reason they didn't appear in his speech links. We've worked with the tournament to figure out what went wrong and think we know how to fix it for next time. Thank you for the feedback. This will be very helpful.

    Coach J
    NHS Speech and Debate - John Julian Sr on April 24, 2013 at 03:55AM EST
    Good job by everyone on their hard work! - Lauren Cameron on April 24, 2013 at 03:24AM 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