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: Maneo Choudhury (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Lindsey Hancock (Mercer University)

Judge: Robert Glass (Binghamton University)

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

  • Maneo Choudhury
    Maneo Choudhury
    vs.



    Lindsey Hancock
    Lindsey Hancock
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Maneo Choudhury

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    Kazez, Jean. Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

    http://ca-biomed.org/csbr/pdf/fs-whynecessary.pdf

    http://caat.jhsph.edu/publications/Articles/3r.html

    Posted at N/A by Maneo Choudhury

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    Kazez, Jean. Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

    http://www.mofed.org/Animal_Research.htm

    http://animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/128/animal-research-and-medical-progress/

    Posted at N/A by Maneo Choudhury

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Robert Glass

    Category Maneo Choudhury Lindsey Hancock
    Use of evidence: 3.3 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.3 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 3.8
    Identification of key points: 3.7 3.8
    Comments: Post your videos on time in the future.
    Openly criticize the examples of testing being used (diabetes, for instance, was a cul-de-sac of animal testing, and animal testing directly cost millions of human lives), and attack utilitarian logic directly instead of just mounting the side attack you end up using. Allows for clearer clash and takes out the Neg's internal links.


    Ways to Improve: You misunderstand the abilities claim that the Aff makes. The standards you hold for what makes a life more worthwhile and 'rich' are all arbitrarily self-selected by humans to further human goals. Moreover, the closet racist claim makes sense in this context in that the self-serving selection of traits to benefit human protection (e.g. understanding the 'laws of the universe') are similarly arbitrary to the traits that white supremacists used to justify their own benefit (e.g. European culture).
    Either restructure your opening case to avoid these links, or go only for clear brightline argument between species and/or ethical selfishness claims.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Lindsey Hancock

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote neg due to procedural problems with the Aff failing to post videos in a timely manner.
    I think the affirmative is ahead on claims of both magnitude, and is winning critical impact turns to the way that the neg prioritizes human lives over non-human lives. The neg is still winning the claim that animal testing is probably necessary to save lives, but absent a coherent reason to directly value human lives over animal lives I would end up voting affirmative in a world of timely videos from the aff.


    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