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: Mckensie Stoltzfus (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Nelson Cantrell (Wood River High School)

Judge: Thomas Hyatt (Bellevue College)

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

  • Mckensie Stoltzfus
    Mckensie Stoltzfus
    vs.



    Nelson Cantrell
    Nelson Cantrell
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Nelson Cantrell

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Nelson Cantrell

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Mckensie Stoltzfus

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Thomas Hyatt

    Category Mckensie Stoltzfus Nelson Cantrell
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.3
    Delivery skill: 3.9 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 5.4 5.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5.9
    Identification of key points: 5.5 5.6
    Comments: Structure! Where is the structure! Even if you use a narrative paradigm, you need to elucidate it through your delivery...in your rebuttal, you get at the heart of evidentiary comparison , which is great...good analysis of impacts of animal testing harms vs benefits. You should roadmap your constructive. Also, neg argument construction is awkward with no impact structure. Good attempt at case clash after neg off case. Good grasp of structure and argument clash in rebuttal. Really good comparison of arguments strengths. You should go beyond cancer analysis for why testing is necessary. Great wrap up in your rebuttal and rfd...you have promise

    The decision is for the Opposition: Nelson Cantrell

    Reason for Decision:

    This round is a toss up. The aff presents a good case for why animal testing should be stopped. Neg presents good case and focuses on cancer and expands on that impact. Although I am extremely receptive to affs arguments, I am persuaded by neg arguments and defense of evidence in relation to cancer...what I would have liked from both sides is for you to weigh the arguments for me in the last rebuttals...both sides have great promise...I vote neg...


    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