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: Zoe Liebmann (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Anca Dogaroiu (Cornell University)

Judge: Jonathan Zaikowski (Wake Forest University)

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

  • Zoe Liebmann
    Zoe Liebmann
    vs.



    Anca Dogaroiu
    Anca Dogaroiu
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Zoe Liebmann

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anca Dogaroiu

    Citations

    Show


    van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, et al. (2010) Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? PLoS Med 7(3): e1000245. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245

    Food and Drug Administration
    http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm

    Posted at N/A by Zoe Liebmann

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Anca Dogaroiu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Zoe Liebmann

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Jonathan Zaikowski

    Category Zoe Liebmann Anca Dogaroiu
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 2.5 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 4
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.5
    Comments: Good use of evidence, and interesting analysis of failure rates with experiments. I don't know if you realize it, but you did a lot of "underviewing" - you read a piece of evidence, and then explained what you had just read. You don't need to do all that. Just preface the evidence, read it, and move on to your next point. Also, I'm not sure if you're already doing this, but one very helpful tip is to take bullet-point notes of your opponents key points, and then be sure to respond to each of those in your next speech. Missing your opponent's ethics claims in her first speech could have been very bad for you, and the PETA evidence indict was also a problem. I liked the evidence comparison and the indict, those were good and smart arguments. Your speeches would benefit from better time distribution - you spent a LOT of your closing remarks talking about the difficulty of making new research methods, but only a little bit on the ethics claims which, until that point, the proposition had not even responded to. If you had spent maybe 30-45 more seconds on that, I think it would have helped a lot.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Anca Dogaroiu

    Reason for Decision:

    I voted for the opposition largely because of the counterplan.

    At the end of the debate, the proposition has 4 arguments against the counterplan. The first is that there are 50 methods in place, and are cost-effective. This argument comes from the PETA evidence, which the opposition indicted in her closing remarks on the grounds that PETA is probably trying to stretch the truth. I don't have a defense of PETA from the proposition, so I discounted this evidence. The second argument was that the FDA will approve non-animal methods. I feel that the opposition has a very strong argument against this with the sky-rocketing costs argument, which I don't see much response to from the proposition. The FDA may approve non-animal tests, but those would costs billions of dollars and bankrupt the pharmaceutical industry, thus making it a moot point. Because the proposition's response to this rested on the PETA evidence (which was indicted as biased), I don't have any reason to believe that these new methods will come about quickly or cheaply. Third, the 92% argument about humans and animals being too different. I have a very good explanation from the opposition, that those differences are due to methodological problems with the research, and alternate causes (like the drugs not being profitable), and not just that humans and animals are too distinct. Fourth, I have the "painkillers don't stop poor treatment" argument, although this is a new argument. Nonetheless, if I give that argument full weight, I still feel that the counterplan's net benefit of not collapsing the pharmaceutical industry far outweighs the harm of poor treatment that is mitigated by painkillers.

    On the ethics debate, I would have voted opposition much easier if the closing remarks had extended the argument that benefit to human society is what should guide my ballot. Instead, I was given a more generic argument about how we shouldn't value animals as equals. I'm not really given a reason why that's the case (such as "animals can't use rational capacities" or "it's just how nature operates - bigger animals use smaller ones as they see fit.") Because there isn't much of a "why" provided, I found that debate a wash and went to the generic solvency questions.

    Good debate everyone, sorry for taking a long time to get my ballot in.


    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