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: Jacob Landsberg (University of Washington Bothell) vs. Opposition: Elizabeth Gellis (Binghamton University)

Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)

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

  • Jacob Landsberg
    Jacob Landsberg
    vs.



    Elizabeth Gellis
    Elizabeth Gellis
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Landsberg

    Citations

    Show

    Framework
    Meszaros 89 (Istvan, likes Marx not Adam Smith. The Power of Ideology, p 232-234 GAL)

    Solvency
    Herod 2004
    (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm)

    Holloway 05 (John, 8-16, Ph.D Political Science-University of Edinburgh , Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616)

    Kovel 2 Professor of Social Studies at Bard (Joel, The Enemy of Nature, p224)

    Environment
    Foster 2005 (John Bellamy, Monthly Review, March, Vol. 56, Iss. 10, The End of Rational Capitalism)

    War
    Herod 7 (James, Columbia U graduate and political activist, Getting Free Pg. 62-63 JF)

    Foster 8 (John Bellamy, prof of sociology @ U of Oregon, Peak Oil and Energy Imperialism Monthly Review Vol. 60.3 July-August JF)


    VTL
    Dillon 1999 [Michael, Another Justice, Political Theory 27:2]


    Racism
    Zweig, NY State University at Stony Brook Center for Study of Working Class Life director, & Roediger, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign history instructor, 06
    (Michael and David, Race and Poverty: An Exchange, Monthly Review, December 2006, Proquest, accessed 7/10/09, JD)

    Abramovitz, Hunter College School of Social Work Associate Professor, 88
    (Mimi, Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to Present, P. 24-25) JD

    Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis

    Citations

    Show

    US Economic System: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/are012/lecturepdf/lectur6.pdf
    Mixed Economy Definition: http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/world-economic-indicators/type-of-economic-system.html
    Plot of Les Misrables (musical): http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/les-miserables/character-list.html
    List of Characters in Les Misrables (book): http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/les-miserables/character-list.html

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Landsberg

    Citations

    Show

    Framework
    Meszaros 89 (Istvan, likes Marx not Adam Smith. The Power of Ideology, p 232-234 GAL)

    Solvency
    Herod 2004
    (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm)

    Holloway 05 (John, 8-16, Ph.D Political Science-University of Edinburgh , Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616)

    Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis

    Citations

    Show

    Les Misrables: http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hugo/les_miserables/
    Paris Uprising of 1832: http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2012/12/enjoy-les-miserables-but-please-get-your-history-straight-first/
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/#a11417
    TIME: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html

    Posted at N/A by Jacob Landsberg

    Citations

    Show

    No new cites, just extensions from 1st two speeches.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Josh Cangelosi

    Category Jacob Landsberg Elizabeth Gellis
    Use of evidence: 2 3
    Delivery skill: 2 6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.5 5
    Identification of key points: 5.5 4
    Comments: Prop Constructive:
    I always love a good critical affirmative. It might be a regional thing, but your case structure is a little confusing for the following reason. The framework tells me that critical impacts (impacts of our discourse/mindset) matter the most. However, you don't give any positive impacts to your discourse. Your thesis, link, and impacts sections all pretty much say the same thing. I would combine all those points into the thesis section, which states your theory on all the negative aspects of capitalism in this context. Then, the link should be the link to how your advocacy (plan) counters what you are critiquing, so your links should be what you say in the solvency section. Then, you need to give actual concrete positive impacts to my endorsing your discourse in the impacts section. (Just some thoughts from another region/perspective).

    Prop Rebuttal:
    Good arguments defending speed and saying that the CP links to Cap. However, while I can handle a good amount of speed because I've been judging for many years, excessive speed has one pitfall: you fail to make your arguments convincing and clear. This is the case when you move on case. I played back your speech a bunch, but I couldn't follow your answers on the framework. Here is where you need to tell a very clear, commonsense, coherent story as to why the critical framework beats the policy framework. Furthermore, while I know it's a short speech, I feel like your critical story gets a little lost in the rebuttal. Be sure to pull through your points and explain the big picture of what your'e trying to do.
    Opp Constructive:
    Nice job generating a lot of off-case offense. However, I would also spend more time on the line by line of the Prop's case, particularly the framework. Since you are saying the round should not be evaluated based on discourse but on policy, do more to counter his framework arguments that support the critical approach, and be sure to give some reasons why the policy framework is better. Also, I highly encourage you to organize your arguments into clearly distinguished contentions rather than using the narrative approach. I would signpost these taglines for your positions: Counterplan (the one position you do label), Speed Bad, Revolution DA, Benefits of Animal Testing, and Anthrocentrism. Just clearly delineate between main positions.

    Last Opp Speech:
    I like the Opp's sassiness, i.e. confidence. Opp generates some great offense. I do encourage the opp to organize speech into main voting issues. Just highlight your organization more.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Elizabeth Gellis

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD:
    This is a really good debate between two very different styles and frameworks. Let me work through all the issues to arrive at a decision:

    1. Speed:
    Prop is winning these speed good arguments: 1. helps strategic thinking 2. content is more important than delivery, as with organization analogy 3. reverse voter issue (RVI) on exclusion.

    Opp is winning these speed bad arguments: 1. Quality over quantity (Prop's final speech says he's just giving lots more warrants, but the quality of those warrants is still more important than the quantity). 2. Clarity is critical to good debate. 3. Speed makes debate less accessible.

    In sum, both sides are winning arguments regarding why speed is good/bad, so that argument is a wash. Opp does drop the RVI, but I have to ask myself if that RVI functions independently of the speed good arguments. If the speed good/bad arguments are kind of a wash, should I still vote against Opp for attempting to exclude Prop because of his speed? Moreover, Opp never once says I should vote against Prop for going fast. Opp just says speed sucks. In this way, she's not really excluding anyone from the debate. Since I personally prefer the Opp style to the Prop's and can't stand excessive speed in debate, it's hard not to intervene here. I will say Prop's middle speech was the fastest. The first and last speeches were more manageable. In any case, Prop has certainly done enough that I won't vote against Prop for speed. Let me see how the other issues play out.

    2. Framework:
    Since Opp never really gives any reasons to prefer the policy framework to the critical framework, Prop's framework flows through. So, I have to weigh the debate on critical/methodological impacts, although I'm not exactly sure what that means because Prop doesn't clearly explain that point.

    3. Links:
    While Prop should have responded to Opp's argument that animal testing does not link to Capitalism (Cap) because some countries that test on animals are not Cap, Prop is giving me lots of reasons why exploiting animals for money and forcing humans to do that exploitation per corporate interests is capitalist, and Prop says that the counterplan does the same.

    4. Critical Impacts:
    Prop wants me to just say no to capitalism's commodifcation of animals. But I don't get what the critical impacts of my embracing the Prop's discourse/methodology of just saying no to capitalize are. The impacts that Prop lists are not critical impacts of my saying no to Cap. They are simply harms of capitalism. Do those harms of capitalism outweigh the impacts of animal testing? Maybe. But I just don't get what the impacts are of my either supporting the Prop rhetoric or the Opp capitalist CP.

    5. Revolution DA: Prop says saying no with my ballot is not the same as revolution. True, but I don't know what saying no with my ballot does.

    In the end, Prop wins the framework, so I shouldn't vote on the policy but on the critical impacts, so all of the Opp offense about benefits of animal testing disappears. However, I don't know what the critical impacts are to voting for prop or opp, even if Prop is winning that capitalism is bad. In this way, I think the Opp arguments against jargon and speed are exemplified in that the Prop's framework story is not ultimately clear enough. So, I know it sounds crazy, but I have to vote Opp on presumption. Opp has no offense left, but Prop has not in my mind met his own burden of proof of explaining the critical impacts of the ballot rejecting capitalism. If I'm misunderstanding what Prop means by those critical impacts, I think that's a problem of the framework lacking clarity. And presumption doesn't flip to the Prop if I'm not weighing the counterplan. All that said, great debate. Both competitors rock.


    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