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: Molly Depew (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Lindsey Hancock (Mercer University)

Judge: Marvin Carter (CSU-Fullerton)

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

  • Molly Depew
    Molly Depew
    vs.



    Lindsey Hancock
    Lindsey Hancock
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Molly Depew

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/sciruslink?src=web&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcosmos.ucdavis.edu%2Farchives%2F2009%2Fcluster7%2FBUI_ALAIN.pdf

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/about.htm

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

    http://speakingofresearch.com/extremism-undone/alternatives/

    Posted at N/A by Molly Depew

    Citations

    Show

    Gilhooley, Margaret. (2007) . (LexisNexis). Vioxx's History and the Need for Better Procedures and Better Testing

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110425173900.htm

    http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ldCarle0202.pdf

    http://www.ethosdebate.com/2010/11/values-in-policy-debate/

    Posted at N/A by Molly Depew

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Marvin Carter

    Category Molly Depew Lindsey Hancock
    Use of evidence: 3.1 2.7
    Delivery skill: 3.6 2.9
    Coherence of arguments: 3.4 2.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 2.5
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3
    Comments: I really enjoyed listening to your speeches

    I think that you were very responsive overall to the negatives arguments

    I also find that most of your position is a better position than the negatives, however, the negative is just somewhat sneaky, perhaps, even unknowningly to push ahead in this debate.

    I think she avoided debating you, which i hate, and I think your adaptation was all good, until you missed this effects argument about topicality which is just to say you need a plan that does something not, not something that leads to doing something else later.

    Other than that, I think you are destroying your opponent.
    Too much tech
    Too much theory

    If the aff didnt drop effects t, then I would be voting for the aff

    your case args are all defensive too, you might want to find some turns, not to mention in a util framework you have no justification for winning. You save zero lives, seeing as u are only defending sq, which means u have to win a 100% chance that she wont save not one more life compared to you..

    The decision is for the Opposition: Lindsey Hancock

    Reason for Decision:

    The Aff dropped the effects T argument. I wanted to vote aff, and entirety of the rest of the debate, however this minor slip up allowed the negative to steal the ballot.

    Best of luck to you all

    my email is marvin.carterjr@gmail.com
    if you all have further questions


    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