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: Tyler Julian (Newport High School) vs. Opposition: amelia poulin (University of Rochester)

Judge: Dan Weiser (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Tyler Julian
    Tyler Julian
    vs.



    amelia poulin
    amelia poulin
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Tyler Julian

    Citations

    Show

    1) Russell & Birch, 1959 (The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, Chap. 4, retrieved from Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/chap4d, April 16, 2013)

    2) Vicki Robinson, Dec 2005 (School Science Review, Dec 2005 87(319) "Speaking of Research"

    3) CW Stratton, Nov 2006 (Medical Clinics of North America Journal, Nov 2006, retrieved from NIH.gov, April 2013)

    4) Helen Marston, June 2011 (New Internationalist magazine, June 2011)

    5) Hartung & Hoffman, March 2009 ("Food for Thought... on In Silico Methods in Toxicology", ALTEX Conference Proceedings, March 2009)

    6) Pippin & Sullivan, April 2013 (http://pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests, retrieved April 17, 2013)

    Posted at N/A by amelia poulin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Tyler Julian

    Citations

    Show

    1) Senate.gov, April '13, CFR 21 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act which governs testing required for new drugs being brought to market for both humans and animals), http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epw.senate.gov%2FFDA_001.pdf&ei=t9p6UaegEMePiAKb0YGgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGYT8DItMrGQMiptG5MjnpszLN_Mg&sig2=LQOyW13laO8TqmJUTqn0UQ&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&cad=rja, retrieved April 26, 2013

    2) Carlsson, Dr. Hans-Erik, April 2004, (Expert in Biomedical research, specializing in animal welfare in testing) cited from BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3650057.stm

    Posted at N/A by amelia poulin

    Citations

    Show

    "Frequently Asked Questions About Animal Experimentation Issues." PCRM. N.p.. Web. 27 Apr 2013
    answer to the " Is some animal testing required by law?" FAQ

    Posted at N/A by Tyler Julian

    Citations

    Show

    1) FDA.gov, March 2012, (showing FDA requires animal testing by regulation), http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm295473.htm, retrieved April 28, 2013.

    2) FDA.gov, 2007, (The CDER are the regulations around how the FDA tests drugs and what kinds of drugs they test), www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM121704.pdf, retrieved April 28, 2013.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Dan Weiser

    Category Tyler Julian amelia poulin
    Use of evidence: 2.5 2.5
    Delivery skill: 3 3
    Coherence of arguments: 2.5 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 3
    Identification of key points: 3 4
    Comments: Really nice job! I think you put together a really good case and are so close to getting my vote. You presented yourself really professionally and come across with clear, confident arguments. You did a really nice job of extending your arguments and carrying them across the debate. The main problem i have is that the opposition has a clear criticism of your mindset and an alternative that i just don't think you spend a whole lot of time really responding to. Keep up the good work! Good luck! Really nice job! I think that you put together a really nice case and carry a clear set of arguments throughout the debate. I ultimately did vote on your criticism of his anthropocentric mindset and the species specific alternative you present. I do agree with your opponent that you rely more on logic that evidence, which is ok, but just be careful in the future! Keep it up and good luck!

    The decision is for the Opposition: amelia poulin

    Reason for Decision:

    Both debaters agree that animal testing is bad. The only thing to really evaluate is if we should allow species specific treatment. It seems like that would be a good idea. The proposition never really responds to the overall point of the opposition argument that we should respect animals and not take such an anthropocentric mindset. This means allowing drugs that will treat dog cancer be tested on dogs. It seems like the props heart is in the right place, but given that he is called out on this humanistic mindset and never really responds I have to say opposition wins that the policy will ultimately hurt animals in the long run.


    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