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: Dhruv Sehgal (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Lindsey Hancock (Mercer University)

Judge: Carlos Varela (University of Vermont)

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

  • Dhruv Sehgal
    Dhruv Sehgal
    vs.



    Lindsey Hancock
    Lindsey Hancock
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-animal-testing-be-banned

    http://suite101.com/article/why-america-should-ban-animal-testing-a208031

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    Kazez, Jean. Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

    http://ca-biomed.org/csbr/pdf/fs-whynecessary.pdf

    http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_introduction.htm

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://ca-biomed.org/csbr/pdf/fs-whynecessary.pdf

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    In first video

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Carlos Varela

    Category Dhruv Sehgal Lindsey Hancock
    Use of evidence: 3.4 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.6 4.8
    Coherence of arguments: 2.8 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 4
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.1
    Comments: TWO ARGUMENTS THAT NEEDED TO BE STRONGER:

    ALT SOLVENCY: Alternatives to animal testing needed to be extrapolated better to counter the oppositions claims of the disadvantages to this plan. ie Alternatives solve 100% more than animal testing.

    ANIMAL TESTING IS NOT NECESSARY: This argument needed to be stronger to.
    Overall very good.

    I don't consider the "tit for tat" argument to be an ad hominem, and could've avoided the whole feeling offended by it.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Lindsey Hancock

    Reason for Decision:

    Great debate to both of you! Truly enjoyed this debate.

    In the end of the round I am convinced that alternatives are not fully developed. Aff lacks solvency to these alternatives.

    Counter advocacy of having institution review boards solves prop harms, by being able to solve medical harms in most ethical fashion, without the outlined harms found in the Prop world.


    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