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: Sam Burns (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Greg Ginder (Binghamton University)

Judge: (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Sam Burns
    Sam Burns
    vs.



    Greg Ginder
    Greg Ginder
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Greg Ginder

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Greg Ginder

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by N/A

    Category Sam Burns Greg Ginder
    Use of evidence: 4.6 4
    Delivery skill: 5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 5 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 2.6
    Identification of key points: 4.6 4
    Comments: Good delivery: ample info delivered at a pace that was easy to follow your logic. I wish you would have countered the Pro's rebuttal more...I felt you had some good points to use from your constructive that could have challenged his position more. You could have made your new info point as you challenged the ideas.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Sam Burns

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a close debate as both made great points in the first constructive. The Pro had 3 contentions that focused on alternatives to animal testing, cruelty to animals, and waste of tax dollars. The Opp countered with the 3 R's campaign, the actual dog liver used for alternative suggested by the Pro, and heavy regulation.
    I see nothing new introduced in the Pro's rebuttal other than making a conclusion that the current methods are outdated. I see that the Pro only responded to topics introduced by the Opp in his constructive. So I disagree that the Pro did not focus on the Opp constructive, he was responding to what was brought up and made a conclusion based on that information. In the end it was a more convincing argument.


    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