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: William Cheung (City University of New York) vs. Opposition: Anthony Mattis (Binghamton University)

Judge: Marvin Carter (CSU-Fullerton)

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

  • William Cheung
    William Cheung
    vs.



    Anthony Mattis
    Anthony Mattis
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by William Cheung

    Citations

    Show

    Jean Baudrillard 2007 (Professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, Utopia Deferred, "Animals Sick of Surplus Value" pages 215-220)

    Giorgio Agamben 1998 (Professor at philosophy at the European Graduate School, Homo Sacer, "Introduction" pages 1-12)

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Mattis

    Citations

    Show

    Roger Morris(Professor of Molecular Neruobiology at King's College), The Independent, "Of Mice and Medicine,"
    (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/of-mice-and-medicine-in-defence-of-animal-experiments-2372843.html)

    Colin Blakemore(Profesor of Neuroscience at Oxford and Warwick University), The Telegraph, "Should We Experiment on ANimals? Yes", (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353960/Should-we-experiment-on-animals-Yes.html)

    Michael Brooks (PhD in quantum physics, author and journalist), New Statesman, "The Truth About Animal Testing," (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/business/2012/07/truth-about-animal-testing)

    George Poste (Veterinarian Director at ASU), AZCentral, "Animal Testing a Necessary Resarch Tool, For Now" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0903poste0903.html?&wired)

    Posted at N/A by William Cheung

    Citations

    Show

    Steven Best 2007 (Steven, Chair of Philosophy at UT-EP, Book Review on Eternal Treblinka for Animals JCAS 5.2)

    Meredith Cohn 2010 (Meredith, Journalist at the Baltimore Sun, Alternatives to Animal Testing Gaining Ground, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-26/health/bs-hs-animal-testing-20100826_1_animal-testing-animal-welfare-act-researchers)

    Slavoj Zizek 2008 (Slavoj, professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, "Violence" pg 3)

    Michael Dillon 1999 (Michael, Professor Politics at the University of Lancaster, Political Theory, April 99, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p155, 21p Another Justice)

    Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose 2003 (Paul, professor in the Department of Anthropology
    University of California, Berkeley and Nikolas, professor in the Department of Sociology
    London School of Economics and Political Science, Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today, page 19-21, http://www.molsci.org/research/publications_pdf/Rose_Rabinow_Biopower_Today.pdf)

    Posted at N/A by Anthony Mattis

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by William Cheung

    Citations

    Show

    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)

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Marvin Carter

    Category William Cheung Anthony Mattis
    Use of evidence: 4 3.8
    Delivery skill: 3 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 2.6
    Identification of key points: 4 2.7
    Comments: the substance of the debate didnt get really debated out, so ill just get to the theory. Few things to do better:

    1. just go slow at the end, you dont need to go fast to stay ahead in this given debate
    2. make sure you have a better response to these exclusion arguments than just "its inevitable shit" suck it up.. there are better answers.
    3. Short and sweet is how you want to ai m your approach to theory. The card is unnecessary.

    also you could use Buad and Agam to impact turn "utility" which is the entirety of the the counter plan. I know you impacted turn util good shit, im just saying if you want to stick to particular authors you started with.
    Given the nature of this debate format, and inability of enough responsiveness its hard to go for a theory argument.

    That being said, I do not discourage you for doing so. Hell, I won many debates with you spread and thats bad, and I can do it just fine.

    The first time I heard someone spread is freaked me out, and i was like judge fck them! This excluded me from the debate, and now we can't talk about whats important here because we have to talk what is theoretically justified.

    Here is a sneaky way of deploying the argument you made at the end. say judge, the affirmative set the tempo already.. there was a massive jump in the rate of delivery. This literally made it impossible for me to respond. Then say, look, at my last speech and now look at this one. This might help you set the theory argument up better.

    Additionally when you go for theory, you go ALL IN on theory. Which means, don't even speak about the counterplan just go all in on why they should lose for spreading. Think of it as starting another debate.

    For being a novice, great job!
    You have a promising future. You sound good and seem to have a good head on your shoulders, keep up the work.

    The decision is for the Proposition: William Cheung

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote aff.

    I think the affirmative does a decent job defending his presentation of spreading even though it was unnecessary. I dont think the negative goes for the counter plan enough to win it, and even if there is a risk the counter plan solves, there conceded permutation is enough to capture the cp.

    What is annoying is that, the theory debate feels incomplete because it didn't get debated out probably due to the format of this type of online debating.

    There was the conceded perm on the cp, which is an easy out for the affirmative there. This is why you gotta gotta gotta go all in on theory because it should outweigh everything else happening in the debate.

    An awesome arg you could make Anthony is use his author against Jean Baudrillard against him.. he would argue that spreading is bad in terms of mass produce all those args and evidence etc etc..

    I kept it brief be cause im trying to graduate and i need to get back to my paper, however.. if you have any questions feel free to email me..

    marvin.carterjr@gmail.com


    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