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: Crystal Hall (West High School) vs. Opposition: Dhruv Sehgal (Binghamton University)

Judge: Christopher Kozak (Rutgers University)

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

  • Crystal  Hall
    Crystal Hall
    vs.



    Dhruv Sehgal
    Dhruv Sehgal
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Crystal Hall

    Citations

    Show

    Thanks for being here to debate!

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    http://books.google.com/books/about/A...
    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/0...
    http://levmm1.wordpress.com/

    Posted at N/A by Crystal Hall

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Dhruv Sehgal

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at N/A by Crystal Hall

    Citations

    Show

    Thanks for being part and judging this debate!

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Christopher Kozak

    Category Crystal Hall Dhruv Sehgal
    Use of evidence: 5.5 5.1
    Delivery skill: 5.6 5.3
    Coherence of arguments: 5 4.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.5 4.9
    Identification of key points: 5.2 4
    Comments: I think that you rely on too much LD tech in this debate. Granted I understand it but this is not a strictly LD format. You would have been better off in this debate by just focusing and sitting on the impact turn arguments of util and instrumentality that the negative never really responds to. You need a better ethical framework other then utill or common sense. I felt you should have read some impact turns of ecocentrism or anthropocentrism good arguments. You need a better defense of utill as well. Like util key to policy making or some other philosophical defense. Just saying "it saves the most lives" is not the best warrant in this instance.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Crystal Hall

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD: Short Version. ( I am lazy and don't feel like typing the whole RFD so I made a youtube video for the long version.)

    I ended up voting affirmative because they are doing a better job at winning the overall ethical framing for how I evaluate impacts in the debate.

    I dont think the negatives util/common sense framework is persuasive in the context of the root cause arguments that go conceded by the negative.

    I highly recommend you watch the video as it is detailed and addresses individual arguments in the debate.

    Please feel free to email me or message me questions about the debate after watching the video.

    Video from the 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