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: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Gus Kimball (Wood River High School)

Judge: sarah bailey (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Brandon Evans
    Brandon Evans
    vs.



    Gus Kimball
    Gus Kimball
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans

    Citations

    Show

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animal+testing
    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/2009_Animals_Used_In_Research.pdf
    http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/awvar/lecture/singer_arguments.html
    http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/holocaust.htm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019976/Why-8-million-animals-face-death-test-toothpaste-washing-liquid.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4817178.stm

    Posted at N/A by Gus Kimball

    Citations

    Show

    http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2013/01/the-obama-administrations-first-term-animal-protection-record.html

    Environmental Values 16 (2007): 169185 2007 The White Horse Press

    Dictionary.com

    http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0903poste0903.html

    Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx

    Posted at N/A by Gus Kimball

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans

    Citations

    Show

    http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Tournaments/2/Invite/binghamton-university-s-1st-annual-online-debate-tournament/
    http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq07.shtml

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by sarah bailey

    Category Brandon Evans Gus Kimball
    Use of evidence: 5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 4.5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.7 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.9 4.8
    Identification of key points: 5 4.5
    Comments: I very much liked how the Prop addressed the res and formed the whole framework around the ethical argument http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/wink.gif Addressing the comparison of Jews to rats (Hitler reference) or limited cognition is always very moving to me, as it brings it to a more understanding perspective. Demonstrating how most deaths are due to cosmetics and not medicine (though under this framework whether it's meds or cosmetics is a moot point)does need to made clearer that under NO circumstances should these test be allowed. I found the Opp attempts to undercut the ethics argument (framework) with USFG as the actor very compelling and the Singer indictment of evidence...interesting. Though defining utilitarians as coming to a numbers game a bit tricky. I did find the Opp argument that tests are still needed (as the Prop does not defend all tests are irrelevant) but does not address the tests PETA has been advocating for.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Brandon Evans

    Reason for Decision:

    For me, as both sides addressed a framework, I felt I had to start (and stop) there, as the arguments have to fall under one of them. Not due to the res (and the definition of the word "all" as the Prop does defend "all"). As there were no voters (thank god!) on the extra time and extra new arguments , I gave NO weight to those, as with the Prop being 'extra-topical".
    With all that being said: Framework- The Prop operates under the framework of getting rid of ALL animals tests, we have an ethical (and moral) obligation to stop, especially since PETA has tests that solve for the status quo if they were more utilized (as Prop points out numerous times and Opp drops this). Where the Opp wants to have the USFG as the actor as defined in the res-and the USFG would NOT eliminate all tests so the Prop framework should not be considered. The issue I have with the Opp is that we are (as a culture, society ect) moving towards a more ethical perspectives, companies are adopting more ethical practices and ingredients. With that said, I find the Prop to be more in line with what the USFG is moving towards (takes out the Opp framework or the Prop SHOULD have permed)and there is no given reason why (besides the USFG wouldn't' do it)the Prop ethical framework would not work.


    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