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: Monique Saastamoinen (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Sam Burns (Wood River High School)

Judge: Shree Awsare (James Madison University)

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

  • Monique Saastamoinen
    Monique Saastamoinen
    vs.



    Sam Burns
    Sam Burns
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Monique Saastamoinen

    Citations

    Show

    Sources:

    .[Dr David Graham, associate director of the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, British Medical Journal 2004;329:1253] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_4

    http://www.birthdefects.org/research/bendectin_1.php
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Animal Testing, Office of Cosmetics and Colors Factsheet, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 3 May 1999

    Animal Testing Policy, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 49 FR 22522, 30 May 1984.

    National Toxicology Program, Episkin, EpiDerm, and Rat Skin Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance (TER), In Vitro Test Methods for Assessing the Dermal Corrosivity Potential of Chemicals, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Aug. 2001.
    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/2009_Animals_Used_In_Research.pdf

    Madhusree Mukerjee, Speaking for the Animals: A Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have Transformed the Animal Laboratory, Scientific American, Aug. 2004

    http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Monique Saastamoinen

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Caucasians-are-not-more-intelligent-than-African-Americans./1/
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/justifications.shtml
    BRING UP HIS LACK OF SOURCES IN LAST SPEECH

    http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

    http://www.ourweekly.com/issues-archive/medical-apartheid-bad-medicine

    http://mightyminnow.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/black-people-are-less-intelligent-says-dr-james-watson-nobel-prize-winner-and-dna-pioneer/
    If they admit the tests are done in order to protect volunteers and patients in clinical trials then it is disingenuous to sell animal testing to society on the basis of protecting the general public after the drug goes to market. On the other hand, if they maintain animal testing is necessary in order to protect society after the drug goes to market, then they have to explain all the failures. Failures like:
    Opren (Oraflex),
    Bextra (valdecoxib),
    Vioxx (Rofecoxib),
    Mibefradil (Posicor),
    Astemizole (Hismanal),
    Baycol (Cerivastatin),
    Raplon (Rapacuronium),
    Phenylpropanolamine,
    Propulsid (Cisapride),
    Rezulin (Troglitazone),
    Bromfenac (Xibrom),
    Seldane (Terfenadine),
    Grepafloxacin (Raxar),
    Etretinate (Tegison),
    Levomethadyl (Orlaam),
    Technetium (99mTc)
    fanolesomab (NeutroSpec),
    Pemoline (Cylert),
    Pergolide (Permax),
    Tegaserod (Zelnorm),
    Practolol,
    Suprofen,
    Fenclozic acid,
    Fenoterol,
    Dexfenfluramine.
    Zimeldine.

    Posted at N/A by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Monique Saastamoinen

    Citations

    Show

    Sources

    http://www.animaltestingfacts.zoomshare.com

    Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic.
    http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=91 (last accessed
    April 21, 2005

    http://www.newscientist.com...

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html#ixzz23daCJG6d

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Shree Awsare

    Category Monique Saastamoinen Sam Burns
    Use of evidence: 3.5 3
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 3 2.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3
    Identification of key points: 2.6 3
    Comments: I appreciate your pathos, but the last speech was pretty scattered--organizationally, I would suggest putting your winning arguments at the top. I also think you need to respond to this argument that animal testing helps both humans and animals way earlier in the debate You identified that the crux of the debate was the conceded argument of "animal testing helping both animals and humans", but you need to put defense on the claim that animal testing leads to more false positives and the comparative, evidenced claim that the benefits of breakthroughs have been far less than the number of people who've died because of testing (through cancer treatments, thalmyde, etc). I think a better strategy would be to defend a PIC where you just defend ONE form of animal testing in the context of ONE illness

    The decision is for the Proposition: Monique Saastamoinen

    Reason for Decision:

    This was close. The aff wins a conceded argument that animal testing leads to false positives that kill human lives, and that these false positive outweigh the impact of "breakthroughs" which don't help as much as it hurts both humanity and animals


    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