Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
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 Anca Dogaroiu
Information about the EU ban
New York Times on EU ban
Ways in which animals are similar
DOCTORS AND LAWYERS FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE: http://www.dlrm.org/resources/victims.htm
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Anca Dogaroiu||Ande Carbonel|
|Use of evidence:||3||2.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.1||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||3|
|Identification of key points:||5||2.5|
|Comments:||A wiki doesn't count as a qualified source. You can find something better. Get into more details about what the alternatives to animal testing are.
Provide additional citations for your second speech. You make good responses but I'd like to see you have sources for them as well. You do a good job sorting through those arguments you need to answer and those you don't.
|Provide the sites for the sources you use and give qualifications, don't just say buzzle. Your arguments that more animals die in the food industry and in the homes doesn't necessarily prove that we should test on these animals. Focus on why animal testing is essential. You mention this point but you should emphasize it and provide sources for it so it's not just a claim. Also argue why the alternative methods fail.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Anca Dogaroiu
Reason for Decision:
The opposition needs to address the ethics argument and more directly defend utilitarianism as a method of analysis. When you say the majority are rats and rats don't matter you need to prove that rats aren't sentient, don't feel pain, etc. Otherwise there's no reason why it's okay to kill rats but not cows or monkeys. Just because people kill rats elsewhere it doesn't mean they should be tested on. Also, the prop argues that animal testing causes bad results and the alternative works better. You assert the opposite but the prop has better evidence (which she provides the site for) versus just a website called buzzle.
Overall I think this was a very good debate and that it just needed a little better strategy on the opposition side to really clash and identify the key points.