Judge: Alec Opperman (The New School)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at N/A by William Cheung
Genescient no date (Research facility with a mission statement to extend healthy human lifespan by using advanced genomics to develop therapeutic substances that attack the diseases of aging http://www.genescient.com/research/why-fruit-flies/)
Duncan 2012 (David Ewing, Journalist at Discover Magazine, http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/08-your-cancer-your-cure-how-new-genetic-tests-saving-lives#.UXnfRrWsiSo)
Annan 2006 (Kofi, former Secretary-General of the UN "Global Health: Challenges, Capacity and Responsibility", UN Chronicle, 2006, Issue 2, http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue2/0206p04.htm accessed)
Baudrillard 1981 (Jean, Prof of philosophy at the European Graduate School, Simulacra and Simulation, p 134-136)
Baudrillard 1994 (Jean, Prof of philosophy at the European Graduate School, The Illusion of the End p. 66-71)
Brown 2001 (Wendy Brown professor of poli sci at duke, Politics Out of History, Princeton University Press, 2001)
Schlag 1991 (Pierre, Prof of Law at U. Colorado The Problem of the Subject, Texas Law Review, June, Lexis)
Kappeler 1995 (Susanne, The Will to Violence: The politics of personal behavior, Pg. 10-11)
Bernauer 1990 (James, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, Michel Foucaults Force of Flight, 1990, p. 141-142)
Posted at N/A by William Cheung
Frank Irizarry 2005 debate coach, lecturer and doctoral student at the University of Florida, 3-11-2005 http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200503/0279.html
Doremus Holly 2000 (Doremus, Professor of law at UC Davis, Winter, 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11)
Fuyuki Kurasawa 2004 (Professor of Sociology, York University of Toronto, Fuyuki, Constellations Volume 11, No 4, 2004).
Posted at N/A by Jacob Dorfman
attention to the "Debate Evaluation" Section
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Alec Opperman
|Category||Jacob Dorfman||William Cheung|
|Use of evidence:||1||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||1||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||0.5||5|
|Identification of key points:||5||5|
|Comments:||Jacob - Stop saying "like", if you're not what sure to say, just pause for half a second.
||William - You're an awful human being.|
The decision is for the Opposition: William Cheung
Reason for Decision:
I sit here tasked with deciding firstly whether "spreading" is permissible in this online tournament and secondly, well, I don't know.
Let me first start by stating Jacob's arguments against William. First it seems that William's arguments are both "insane" and "ridiculous". I do not endorse this use of ableist language, perhaps you should inquire about the intersection of disability studies and animal studies in Binghamton's latest conference.
Secondly, rather than calling an argument ridiculous, despite the veracity of such a claim, it is always best to respond to it on face. You say these arguments "don't make sense" but you've spent so much time telling me so I have failed to see any intelligible and coherent argument on the aff. What the fuck is moralism? Is it like magnets, how do those work? Am I supposed to believe that inflicting pain on an animal is bad? What about the pain of depriving William of a delicious steak (I myself am a vegetarian). What about the pain of all the Foxconn workers who built the PC and/or Apple we are all currently using? I find this framework to be quite "ridiculous" indeed, and without further warranted analysis, it is hard for me to "buy."
But to the point - spreading. Apparently William is "speed reading" but I find nothing speedy about his reading. In fact, his coach at CUNY should berate him for being a lazy debater who is too busy reading Baudrillard to do speaking drills. William calls the affirmative lazy - I also deeply disagree with this term because of its predominantly racialized uses - which is deeply ironic from someone who has been reading the same aff for 3 years.
William states, correctly, that the aff provides no brightline for spreading. What is too fast? Hell if I know. I found everything he said to be intelligible. So no, I do not think William was spreading.
Jacob states the the rules state that debaters should strive to inform lay audiences. I was unable to find that section, but I did find the words "Each judge has sole discretion to evaluate rounds however they deem fit."
And for that reason, I vote neg on every piece of conceded evidence.