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: David Diaso Jr. (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Nick Julian (Newport High School)

Judge: Spencer Lo (Binghamton University)

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

  • David  Diaso Jr.
    David Diaso Jr.
    vs.



    Nick Julian
    Nick Julian
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by David Diaso Jr.

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001200181X

    http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/in-vitro-toxicity-testing-market.html

    http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/indiana_journal_of_global_legal_studies/v017/17.2.skene.html

    http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html

    http://news.worldwild.org/animal-testing-does-no-good-in-search-for-aids-cure/

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-14-animal-tests_N.htm
    AltTox.org

    Posted at N/A by Nick Julian

    Citations

    Show

    1) Wilcox, Dr. Neil, DVM, MPH, Summer 1994, Director, Office of Animal Care and Use, US FDA, Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter, http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v5n2/5n2wilco.htm#toc8, retrieved Apr 18, 2013.

    2) Dordick, Dr. Jonathan, Sept 2008, (Inventor: Data Chip alternative test), US National Institutes of Health, Research website, http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/sep/2008/invitro/, retrieved April 18, 2013.

    3) Charles River Labs the award winning, leading lab in the field of humane animal research, retrieved April 18, 2013 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.criver.com%2Fsitecollectiondocuments%2Frm_ld_r_ivb_information_packet.pdf&ei=KluDUcyDMKLTiwLv14GYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHEUupYSwu2XDm38UXPAicIYXsIpg&sig2=BxX6F_ZD5U3vMw2U1DGF6g&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE

    4) IACUC 2013, Univ of Minnesota, http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu/iacuc/public_media/mythfact.cfm

    5) Laleh Amiri-Kordestani and Tito Fojo, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 2012,
    http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/04/06/jnci.djs180.full, retrieved April 27, 2013 (shows 62% of test failures are result of poorly designed human trials - sorry - left off the source citation in the video)

    Posted at N/A by David Diaso Jr.

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_10_50-disasters-of-animal-testing

    http://genomicscience.energy.gov/index.shtml

    Posted at N/A by Nick Julian

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/SummaryofNDAApprovalsReceipts1938tothepresent/default.htm

    Posted at N/A by David Diaso Jr.

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Spencer Lo

    Category David Diaso Jr. Nick Julian
    Use of evidence: 5 5.5
    Delivery skill: 5 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5.4
    Identification of key points: 5.1 5.3
    Comments: Proposition Constructive

    Presentation style/delivery

    Very good speech flowthought a bit too conversational at times (e.g, these monkeys or whatever).
    Good eye contact.

    Substance

    Proposition offered two distinct grounds in favor of the resolution: AT is immoral towards animals, and AT puts humans at risk. Regarding the former, the moral argument could have been better developed, more explicitly statedalthough invasive testing is painful, why is that necessarily immoral? (A missing premise, which should have been explicitly stated, is that we would never subject human animals to those kinds of experiments, and thus the differential treatment is a form of speciesism). Regarding the latter, the Proposition did a good job detailing the scientific problems of AT but wished there was more emphasis and exploration on alternative methods.

    Proposition Rebuttal

    Presentation style/delivery

    Excellent flow and delivery very clear and easy to follow.

    Substance

    Excellent responses, especially highlighting the outdated evidence from 1990.

    Proposition Closing Remarks

    Very good overall, on both delivery and substance
    Im puzzled as to why, in your closing remarks, you focused only on the second ground against AT, and not on the cruelty/harm towards animalsthe latter seems to be the stronger argument. Also, you stated that animals are not being used in the right manner (1:49)this sounds like a tacit concession that there is a right manner by which animals can be used, which would seem to permit some forms of animal testing.


    Opposition Constructive


    Presentation style/delivery

    Delivery speed too fast for me, and there was barely any eye contact. It was hard to make out certain parts of the speech without re-winding.

    Substance

    Overall, excellent job very good use of evidence and you put forth quite a few arguments.
    Very good that you highlighted the high burden on the Proposition, but not clear that to win the debate on the merits, Opposition need only show that viable alternatives do not existperhaps banning all testing is the morally right thing to do even if via alternatives do not exist.
    Not sure why banning AT would mean a return to Nazi experimentationespecially if people consent to them.
    Very good responses to Proposition.

    Opposition Rebuttal & Closing Remarks

    Presentation style/delivery


    Again, speed is too fast for me, and there was no eye contact.

    Substance

    Excellent responses, which elevates the debate to a higher level. However, Im not convinced by the one question that I need to answer: Can we ban all animal testing and still maintain the level of medical advancements that we need in order to reduce human suffering? Why is that the question? Why is human suffering given more priority than non-human suffering?

    The decision is for the Proposition: David Diaso Jr.

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a hard call as both speakers demonstrated high skill, and although I felt that the Oppositions use of evidence and rebuttals were a bit stronger (once I was able to understand them better after re-winding a few times), I must flow the debate to the Proposition, since his delivery made the crucial difference here.


    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