Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Daniel Santos (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Devin Gallagher (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Resolved: This house believes that being a vegetarian is a better ethical choice than meat eating.

Daniel Santos vs.

Devin Gallagher

Click to begin

Speech Details

Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

Posted at October 6, 2014 08:55:31PM EST by Daniel Santos

Citations

Show

Taylor, Sunaura. "Beasts of Burden: Disability Studies and Animal Rights."Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 19.2 (2011): 191-222. Print.

Craig, Winston J., and Ann Reed Mangels. "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets." Journal of the American Dietetic Association109.7 (2009): 1266-1282.

Stanton, Maureen. "Meat: What's Not for Dinner." Fourth Genre: Explorations in Nonfiction 8.2 (n.d.): 171-74. Web.

Hawthorne, Mark. "Inside the Life of a Factory Farm Worker." VegNews. N.p., 01 May 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=5732&catId=1>.

Posted at October 8, 2014 01:05:37AM EST by Devin Gallagher

Citations

Show

None available for this speech.

Posted at October 8, 2014 03:27:04PM EST by Daniel Santos

Citations

Show

Craig, Winston J., and Ann Reed Mangels. "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets." Journal of the American Dietetic Association109.7 (2009): 1266-1282.

Hawthorne, Mark. "Inside the Life of a Factory Farm Worker." VegNews. N.p., 01 May 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=5732&catId=1>.

Posted at October 10, 2014 12:20:04AM EST by Devin Gallagher

Citations

Show

None available for this speech.

Posted at October 10, 2014 02:06:17PM EST by Daniel Santos

Citations

Show

None available for this speech.

Status

This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

Submitted at October 10, 2014 03:12:21PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

Category	Daniel Santos	Devin Gallagher
Use of evidence:	4.5	2.5
Delivery skill:	4.8	4.3
Coherence of arguments:	4.5	4.5
Responsiveness to opponent:	4	4
Identification of key points:	4	3.6
Comments:	Good speaking voice and outlining of your arguments into three distinct advantages as well as defining what you want to defend. In our health observation you should explain what being healthy means in relation to ethics. I like your kritik of universal ethics as an answer to his procedural argument. You need to answer his fairness arguments and not just the education portion of it. You spend too much on defense answering smaller points instead of on the primary piece of opposition offense, which is the procedural argument.	You should provide citations for your arguments. Ie define your terms for "this house" in the resolution. I think your lack of defining ethics is bad since it destroys the possibility of having this debate. Do more work impacting why fairness and education should be a voting issue. Your standards are good. Also, try to have a little more excitement in your voice. You do speak very clearly though. You need to answer that ethics can't be universal argument, which required ethics to be talked about in context of specific places. That's essentially the proposition's definition of ethics. You're also getting caught up on defense instead of focusing on the standards from your opening speech and explaining the voting issues.

The decision is for the Proposition: Daniel Santos

Reason for Decision:

After the proposition rebuttal I think the opposition is winning the procedural argument. However, after the opposition rebuttal & closing I think the opposition is losing the procedural argument because (1) You just restate your initial interpretation and violation instead of extending your standards and explaining why the standards are worth voting; (2) You need to answer the proposition's definition of ethics, which requires a non-universal understanding of ethics. If the opposition focused on how that was unfair and bad for education like you did in the opening I would probably vote for this argument. The opposition is right that the procedural argument comes first but in the debate the proposition wins that they are topical because of the aff's non-universal definition of ethics (which is impacted) versus unimpacted extensions of the initial procedural argument.

Good debate by you both. I really enjoyed listening to it.

2 Comments

There is no written policy on providing citations and it is optional. However, in any format of debate it always increases the credibility of your argument to present qualified sources. I do think you provided enough verbal citation where it can be found online, which is why you aren't voted down or lose for having less qualified sources. However, I do think you could have used your sources better and provide easy access to your sources. Of course, the RFD has nothing to do with citations. That really only effected your "use of evidence" rating, which was also effected by your lack of deploying the quality of sources in your second speech. - Joe Leeson-Schatz on October 10, 2014 at 05:18PM EST

After searching through the website I have not found any proof that I am required to site my sources. The level of citation that I presented in this debate is what I was lead to believe was acceptable for a debate. If there is a specific way that the school would like their participants to cite their information there should be a written policy that I can access. If I am incorrect in my statement and there is a written policy for citing your sources I would ask that the judge please provide the link to this policy. - Devin Gallagher on October 10, 2014 at 05:14PM EST

Add Comment

Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.