Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)
Resolution: Choice of Three
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 14, 2013 11:47:18PM EST by Andre Donaldson
The Use of Human Blood Products in
Manufacturing of Vaccines: Implications
for Malaria VaccinesWHO Initiative for Vaccine Research MALVAC 2009 Meeting 3-4 June, 2009 Dakar Senegal:
Sanjai Kumar, Ph.D.
Chief, Malaria Research Program
Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases
Office of Blood Research and Review
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
Bredeson, Carmen. Jonas Salk: Discoverer of the Polio Vaccine. Enslow Publishers, 1993.
Posted at October 19, 2013 09:39:32PM EST by Edward Arsenault
Bekelman, Justin E., Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross. "Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research." The Journal of the American Medical Association 289.4 (2003): n. pag. The Jama Nerwork. 22/29 Jan. 2003. Web. 14 Oct.
Mears, Bill. "Court: Human Genes Cannot Be Patented." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 June 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.
Moore, Melissa. "Food Sovereignty: Global Rallying Cry of Farmer Movements." Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. N.p., 31 Oct. 2003. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Specter, Michael. "Can We Patent Life?" The New Yorker. N.p., 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Wolf, Richard. "Justices Rule Human Genes Cannot Be Patented." USA Today. Gannett, 13 June 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Posted at October 29, 2013 01:38:21AM EST by Andre Donaldson
None available for this speech.
Posted at November 4, 2013 10:51:19PM EST by Edward Arsenault
All sources used for this video and in this debate are all previously listed in the "Opposition Construction" source list.
Posted at November 12, 2013 04:30:09PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at November 14, 2013 01:59:30AM EST by Josh Cangelosi
|Category||Andre Donaldson||Edward Arsenault|
|Use of evidence:||1.1||1.1|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||4|
|Identification of key points:||3||4|
|Comments:||I do have to compliment you on the authenticity of your argumentation. You really connect to what you are saying and go for some solid emotional appeals, so nice use of pathos. You also have a really relaxed and mellow speaking style, which I think is awesome for some good, authentic conversation with others. To me, it seems like your purpose here is just that: to have a good, authentic conversation. For that purpose, you were very successful, and I enjoyed listening to you very much. You are very personable, and I think you probably have excellent interpersonal communication skills.
For the purpose of debate, however, I encourage you to get in touch with your more competitive instincts. Pick up the pace, generate more arguments, get more competitive, and debate (not just to have a good conversation) but to win.
|Good speaking, clash, and argumentation overall. Just develop your points with more substantive research and analysis.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Edward Arsenault
Reason for Decision:
I enjoyed listening to your courteous and sociable debate. My advice to both of you is, first, to generate more substantive contentions for your positions. Neither side really generates any substantive analysis on this topic, a fact which suggests to me that not a whole lot of effort was put into your research. Try to go beyond the obvious surface-level analysis and generate some concrete contentions, each with at least several sub points of warrants and evidence. Second, don't get side tracked by topics not clearly relevant to the topic, such as famine. If you do, just explain how that topic relates or (better yet) how that discussion wins you the debate. Stay focused. Finally, keep the presentation more formal, even though this is an online debate. Avoid self-touching (touching face, glasses, etc.) while you speak. Work on developing more effective non-verbal and verbal communication.
Ultimately, I vote Opp because Opp's argumentation is just a tiny bit better developed. Opp argues that patents incentivize the research and development of important cures and treatments. Opp also argues that the altruism model will decrease genetic research and development. Aff agrees that patents do incentivize research, but Aff never answers the objection to the altruism model. So, even if the prices of treatments are high, will the altruism model suffice to generate treatments at all? Aff never answers that question. Also, Opp argues that distribution will work itself out eventually, becoming more affordable, and provides a couple of examples for how that might happen: GMOs, non-profits, etc. Aff says that distribution is just as important as production but never really argues why affordable distribution cannot work itself out on the the patent model.
In the end, as the arguments play out in this round, the altruism model isn't as effective as the patent model, and the patent model will eventually make distribution as effective as production. Both sides agree that helping humanity is important, but Opp successfully argues that the patent model is better equipped to do so.