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: Katja Peller (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Garrett Masada (CSU-Fullerton)

Judge: Jacob Gartman (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Katja Peller
    Katja Peller
    vs.



    Garrett Masada
    Garrett Masada
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Katja Peller

    Citations

    Show

    Gruen, Lori [Professor of Philosophy, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and
    Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University], "The Moral Status of Animals", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
    <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/moral-animal/>.

    Neal D. Barnard [Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University
    School of Medicine and Health Sciences] and Stephen R. Kaufman [Clinical Assistant Professor
    at both Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio University's College of
    Medicine], Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading, Scientific American, February 1997,
    pp. 80-82.

    Neal D. Barnard [Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University
    School of Medicine and Health Sciences] and Stephen R. Kaufman [Clinical Assistant Professor
    at both Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio University's College of
    Medicine], Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading, Scientific American, February 1997,
    pp. 80-82.

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada

    Citations

    Show

    Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Animal Experimentation Is Vital for Medical Research." Proud Achievements of Animal Research. Washington, DC: Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008.

    Cohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary." The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001

    Posted at N/A by Katja Peller

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default.aspx

    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada

    Citations

    Show

    Hospital for Special Surgery. (2008). Tissue Sampling. Retrieved from http://www.hss.edu/conditions_tissue-sampling.asp

    Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Animal Experimentation Is Vital for Medical Research." Proud Achievements of Animal Research. Washington, DC: Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2008.

    Cohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary." The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001

    Posted at N/A by Katja Peller

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/facts/alternatives_animal_tests.html

    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx

    http://cfhs.ca/research/alternatives_to_animal_testing/

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Jacob Gartman

    Category Katja Peller Garrett Masada
    Use of evidence: 4.2 2.8
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 3.8 4.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 4
    Identification of key points: 4 3.5
    Comments: I think you could focus more on the argument about open heart surgery and how it illustrates that models and tissue samples can't capture the complexity of human biology for purposes of developing new medical techniques and treatments. I think you should explain why it is that animals are adequate substitutes for medical research (not just why they're better than tissue samples and computer models) and develop a moral calculus for why animal lives are not worth as much as humans.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Katja Peller

    Reason for Decision:

    Great job to both of you! I vote for the Proposition team because I think you have the better moral reason for voting. Both sides could have done better in explaining philosophically why I would weigh animal lives vs. human lives in the way you're asking me to.

    I give the Opposition a strong weight to their argument that medical testing without animals may not be very effective in many situations. I think that your open heart surgery example is good, you can use it more effectively by explaining further (and presenting evidence about) how difficult it is to model the complexities of human biology.

    At the same time, I think the Proposition has a lot of convincing evidence about why testing on animals isn't necessarily very effective either. That, combined with the moral calculus, convinces me to vote Proposition. Thanks for letting me judge!


    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