Judge: Spencer Lo (Binghamton 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 Christian Chessman
Butler, Judith. "Frames of War" Published in 2008. Print. Judith Butler is awesomeness incarnate and I am in love with her. Various pages; will provide at specific request to firstname.lastname@example.org
PETA. "Animals Experiments: An Overview". http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-experiments-overview.aspx
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Spencer Lo
|Category||Christian Chessman||Sara Lichtenberg|
|Use of evidence:||5||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||3.5|
|Identification of key points:||5.5||3.6|
Excellent opening invokes a powerful image. Speaking pace throughout the presentation was very clear and easy to follow.
The moral framework offered (egalitarian and precariousness) was clearly articulated and its essential terms defined. Good explanation of Butlers argument (of which Im unfamiliar), but thought there should have been a tighter (i.e., concrete) connection to the issue of animal testing.
Excellent emphasis on the framework of the debatewhich might have been different if the opposition didnt adopt it.
Argument: AT is a priori unjustifiable. Not convinced that this inference follows, but at the very least, it does shift the burden on the opposition to explain why AT is justified if Butlers framework is adopted.
Thorough responses to the Opposition
Speaking pace fast but excellent delivery nonetheless.
Excellent, thorough responses to opposition.
Very good speech delivery overall, but some parts could have been smoother.
Good that you narrowed the focus of the debate to non-cosmetic testing. (However, when you clarified at 3:30 that you propose eliminating the 6% of painful testing, it wasnt clear whether that 6% included non-cosmetic testing)
Regarding contention 1: Empirical assertions offered were appropriate and logically relate to the connection, but the connection would have been stronger with the citation of sources.
Regarding contention 2: Most of the assertions under contention 2 did not logically relate to your claimi.e., whether animal testing involves pain is irrelevant to whether banning animal testing would stop all medical discoveries.
Thought it was a strategic mistake to accept Propositions moral framework might have been easier to maintain the opposition viewpoint by rejecting it.
Opposition Rebuttal & Closing Remarks
Very good speech deliveryvery clear and understandable.
Interesting attempt to use the Propositions framework to your advantage but thought it was less than successful (e.g., the conclusion that unequal treatment doesnt show inequality seemed like a big leap)
Decent responses, but again, the choice to accept the Propositions framework likely limited the available counter-arguments. Most promising line of argument was that animals used for testing have no connection to the outside world.
Good use of examples.
The decision is for the Proposition: Christian Chessman
Reason for Decision:
Throughout the speeches, the Proposition made excellent use of Butlers moral framework and gave good, thorough responses to the Opposition. Adopting the Propositions framework was probably a strategic mistake on the Oppositions part. Both speakers show great potential.