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: Luke Lombardi (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: David Diaso Jr. (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Robert Glass (Mamaroneck High School)

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

  • Luke Lombardi
    Luke Lombardi
    vs.



    David  Diaso Jr.
    David Diaso Jr.
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Luke Lombardi

    Citations

    Show

    PR Newswire via LexisNexis; October 23, 2012; report published by marketing group as to why in vitro tests are gaining popularity

    " The Ethics of Medical Testing. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Animal Experiments: Overview." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 6 Mar. 2013.effects of doses of a potential drug).

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html

    Posted at N/A by David Diaso Jr.

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3818914
    http://www.biosciencelabs.com/news/3/Toxicology-In-Vitro-An-Alternative-to-Animal-Testing.html
    http://www.mattek.com/pages/in-vitro-toxicology/
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/
    http://www.toxicology.org/ai/air/AIR_Final.pdf
    http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

    Posted at N/A by Luke Lombardi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by David Diaso Jr.

    Citations

    Show

    http://ca-biomed.org/csbr/pdf/fs-whynecessary.pdf
    http://neurdiness.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/currently-necessary-evil-a-vegans-view-on-the-use-of-animals-in-neuroscience-research/
    http://theconversation.com/animal-based-research-is-still-relevant-and-necessary-8700
    http://newsciencejournalism.com/03/2012/why-animal-research-is-still-necessary/
    http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-live-animal-testing-still-needed-to-prevent-war-deaths-1.217353
    http://caat.jhsph.edu/

    Posted at N/A by Luke Lombardi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Robert Glass

    Category Luke Lombardi David Diaso Jr.
    Use of evidence: 2.3 3
    Delivery skill: 2.6 2.4
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.1 3.8
    Identification of key points: 3 3.4
    Comments: Use all your speech time in the future, exploit concessions your opponent makes, and use more evidence to make your case. Further, it helps to make a stronger ethical argument against animal testing to weigh against the claims of efficacy towards solving disease so that you at least have the ability to win some sort of larger over-arching impact in the round.


    Using new evidence to expand on previously made points is acceptable and not a reason for me to vote them down, and certainly not with only ten seconds of explanation as to why they should lose.
    You need to highlight specific instances where animal testing is uniquely crucial to fighting disease/illness in your first speech, otherwise you lack any impact to weigh against the aff case. You also need to win why human lives outweigh animal lives, otherwise it becomes very easy for the aff to win this debate even while conceding your case.

    Stylistically, using quotes the way you do to open your speeches does nothing to benefit your case and only subtracts from your available speech time, and you over use the phrase "that's what we're dealing with today".

    (Don't use the "Even a vegan admits that animal testing is useful", it gets you nothing and makes you seem pedantic.)

    The decision is for the Opposition: David Diaso Jr.

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote neg because of massive concessions by the affirmative and the risk that testing might be necessary in the future to solve disease. While I find the argument that banning animal testing will lead to new alternatives very compelling, the risk of loss of lives in the short run and the inevitable transition arguments made by the neg means that I still vote neg at the end of the day.


    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