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: Jillian Boccia (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Emily Breeding (University of Rochester)

Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)

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

  • Jillian Boccia
    Jillian Boccia
    vs.



    Emily Breeding
    Emily Breeding
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jillian Boccia

    Citations

    Show

    IDA, 4/17/3013 ([IDA works to educate the public to fight apathy, build empathy, and take concrete action to end all forms of animal exploitation worldwide], IDA, "Humane Research," page 1, http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/responsible-research/humane-research/)

    Kathy Archibald, 4/17/2013 ([director of Safer Medicines Campaign, an independent patient safety organization focusing on the effectiveness of animal research, geneticist], "New Scientist")

    PETA, 4/17/2013 ([People for the Ethical treatment of Animals], PETA, "Urge Feds to Cut Funding for Cruel Experiments at UCSF," https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4653)

    AAVS, 4/17/2013 ([non-profit animal advocacy and educational organization in the United States that is dedicated to ending the experimentation on animals in research, testing, and education], AAVS, "Problems with Animal Research," http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/b.6456997/k.3D74/Problems_with_Animal_Research.htm#.UW82Wb9EyVh)

    Posted at N/A by Emily Breeding

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jillian Boccia

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Emily Breeding

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jillian Boccia

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Josh Cangelosi

    Category Jillian Boccia Emily Breeding
    Use of evidence: 5 5
    Delivery skill: 5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.5 5.5
    Identification of key points: 4.5 4.5
    Comments: Prop constructive speech:
    -Nice use of pathos with specific and graphic examples of animal cruelty and suffering.
    -Use all four minutes. Speech ended abruptly.
    -Make second contention stronger by discussing not only how animal testing is inaccurate but also how drugs passed on animals can harm or kill humans.
    -Label "Alternatives" as a third contention, and develop that point by showing actual cures that have resulted from testing on alternatives.
    -Clear speaking and analysis: well done.

    Prop Rebuttal:
    -Be sure to pull through dropped arguments as well. The easiest argument to win is an argument that your opponent does not dispute. So blow up your second contention about accuracy since your opponent drops it. Capitalize on that mistake. Answer her arguments, but don't just play defense. Bring the attention back to your offense and put your opponent on the defense.
    -Don't waste time on arguments unless you can make them into voter issues. Regarding the "overtime" and "no source citations," tell me why your opponent should lose because she goes overtime or does not cite sources.
    -Improve organization by following a logical order instead of skipping around, and be sure to signpost throughout. For instance, cover your case top to bottom and then cover her contentions, or vice versa.

    Closing remarks:
    -Crystalize concluding speech into key voting issues, and number them. That organizational approach is the most effective in rebuttals.

    Final remarks:
    -Great job! You are very talented. Keep up the good work, and don't let this loss on a super competitive debate get you down.
    -Extemporaneous delivery is preferable to reading. Use more direct eye contact with camera.
    Opp constructive speech:
    -Great confidence, speaking, conviction, and analysis.
    -Group all the arguments regarding benefits to animals, and deliver them once to improve organization and save time.
    -Don't drop Prop's second contention about inaccuracy.
    -I get that you want to keep animal testing and improve laws against cruelty, but clarify whether your advocacy is to keep all animal testing or just animal testing for which there are no alternatives. The latter advocacy seems more strategic.

    Opp Rebuttal:
    -Crystalize concluding speech into key voting issues, and number them. That organizational approach is the most effective in rebuttals.
    -You say regulation can solve all the problems of case, but how does it solve for the "inaccuracy" contention, the problem that animal testing is not beneficial to humans. Since you never contend that point, a better advocacy than keeping all animal testing and regulating better might be banning all testing for the benefit of humans but keeping animal testing intended for the benefit of animals.
    -What are the negative impacts of the poor participating in tests? I'm seeing some competitors go for this argument against capitalism, but try to substitute the abstractions with concrete impacts.
    -Also, while the prop doesn't point this fact out, watch out for the following possible contradiction in your case. On the one hand, you say that regulation can solve for cruelty. On the other, you appeal to utilitarianism to argue that killing a few animals is justified to save many. Killing is a large part of the cruelty and inhumanity of concern.

    Final remarks:
    -Great job!
    -Extemporaneous delivery is preferable to reading. Use more direct eye contact with camera.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Emily Breeding

    Reason for Decision:

    -Both competitors are very talented speakers and debaters. This was a very good, highly competitive, and quite sophisticated debate.
    -Both competitors need to work on sealing the deal in the rebuttal by crystalizing the main voting issues, weighing out all the arguments, and providing "even if arguments" ("even if my opponent is winning that argument, I'm still winning the debate because..."). As it is, both the competitors fail to deliver that knock out punch in the rebuttal by going for the line-by-line analysis instead and, thus, leave the decision to the judge's score cards. So here is how I weigh all the positions out since the competitors don't really weigh out the issues for me by giving me the big picture of why they are winning the debate:

    1. The Opp takes out the Prop contention about cruelty with the argument that increased regulation (as in extending the AWA's protections to all animals) will completely solve for animal cruelty. Prop drops that argument. In this way, the main reason for banning animal testing is lost.

    2. Even though Opp drops Prop's contention two about inaccuracy (excluding discussion about alternatives), that contention loses steam and impact because Prop never capitalizes on the drop and actually drops the argument herself. In this way, the second main reason for banning animal testing vanishes.

    3. So, the debate boils down to two issues: (First) whether or not alternatives can produce the benefits to animals that the Opp is concerned will be lost by banning all animal testing; and (Second) the impact the ban will have on the poor. But realize, since the Prop doesn't have any offensive arguments left, any responses to these Opp arguments are purely defensive.

    (First) The debate is very competitive on this issue. Prop definitely checks back a couple of the Opp's main arguments regarding why animals are needed specifically to benefit animals. Prop says the toxicity of fertilizers, etc., can be determined through alternatives like tissue cultures and that surgeries can be practiced on dead animals. On the other hand, Opp mentions that animals are also specifically needed to generate results for treating heart worms, dog food, flea and tick infestations, diabetes, and chemotherapy. And Prop never answers Opp's utilitarian argument that it's acceptable to sacrifice the lives of a few for the lives of the many. That said, Opp doesn't explain exactly why alternatives aren't useful and why animals are needed for the development of these specific treatments. And Prop mentions a bunch of other alternative tests, even though she doesn't explain the cures that arise from these tests so much. Prop also says that banning animal testing will incentivize more technological development for alternatives. But overall, the debate here is so competitive that the issue is a bit of a wash.

    (Second) The debate here is also back and forth on the flow. I would like to see Opp unpack the impacts of poor taking tests. But the Opp does have some rhetoric about poor and prisoners having no choice but to take the money--however large the risk. In this way, the Prop's final arguments that human testing won't be mandated and that human test subjects know the risks don't quite check back the Opp's concerns. Opp also says that we have a moral obligation to our own species first, and Prop never answers that argument.

    Reason for decision (RFD): In the end, I think Opp is just winning a few more offensive arguments. If regulation can solve for animal cruelty, then there is no real reason to ban animal testing. Additionally, banning animal testing comes with the risk that the poor will be harmed seeing as how, being poor, they need to consent for cash however large the risk. The ban also comes with the slight risk that the alternatives won't be able to solve for everything needed to benefit animals--even though the Prop mitigates that risk for the most part. In this way, the Prop isn't left with much offense, or reasons why we should ban all animal testing. Prop could generate offense with the inaccuracy argument by explaining how stuff developed via animal testing kills people, but she doesn't. Prop is generating a little offense with the idea that banning all animal testing will incentivize technology and alternatives, and Opp should respond to that point (though it gets developed in rebuttal). But I suppose since Prop says many alternatives do exist and are already being developed, the slight risk to poor/prisoners and animals outweighs.


    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