Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: This house believes that being a vegetarian is a better ethical choice than meat eating.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 7, 2014 02:25:32AM EST by Alfred Molier
- PETA documentary- Meet Your Meat: http://www.peta.org/videos/meet-your-meat/
- Methane emissions info- "...9% of all methane in the U.S....": http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
Posted at October 9, 2014 02:53:09AM EST by Alfred Molier
- PETA information: http://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-myths-exposed/
- Green Peace information: http://greenpeacecorps.org/Sustainable_vs_Ind.html
Posted at October 10, 2014 08:40:32PM EST by Alfred Molier
- Information on insecticides: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur12rep/12sum.htm
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 12, 2014 04:02:17PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Alfred Molier||Brian Cheon|
|Use of evidence:||3.1||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.2||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||3|
|Identification of key points:||4||3.5|
|Comments:||Try to speak with a little more energy in your voice. Also you should provide some sources for how you're defining ethics. Good distinct articulations of why the proposition is a more ethical perspective.
Good job on isolating the debate away from things like pesticides in order to emphasize the ethics of the prop. Also good answer to the plant argument in regards to the feeding of animal vegetation. Your speech would be better if you more clearly extended your kantian definition of ethics to frame the rest of your arguments.
|Explain why pesticides or your other arguments disproves the prop's ethics arguments. Ie you need to way util against the kantian ethics that prop is promoting. In short, debate over what ethics is and/or whether or not we should foreground ethics or evaluate based upon a body count.
Make sure to use all your speech time in your second speech. You need to answer the prop's argument that more vegetables are farmed to feed factory farmed animals since that turns both your pesticides and plants feel pain arguments.
The decision is for the Proposition: Alfred Molier
Reason for Decision:
The opposition does a good job at pointing out the problem with farming. However, those problems are non-unique to vegetable farming (because factory farms rely on vegetable farming as well). In addition, just because some farms use pesticides that isn't intrinsic to the prop's argument. You should run a phase-out counter-advocacy that requires the phasing out to include a move away from pesticides, etc. Another strategy could be to better frame a util ethics versus the kantaian ethics of the prop. Ultimately, the factory farms use more vegetables turns both of the opposition's primary arguments against it.