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: Steven Molinari (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Zach Ambrose (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Michael Schatz (University of Pennsylvania)

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

  • Steven Molinari
    Steven Molinari
    vs.



    Zach Ambrose
    Zach Ambrose
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 7, 2014 01:15:21AM EST by Steven Molinari

    Citations

    Show

    Time: http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/04/vegetarians-may-live-longer/

    http://www.peta.org/living/food/top-10-reasons-eat-salmon/

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17345967

    Posted at October 8, 2014 11:47:51AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 8, 2014 03:56:56PM EST by Steven Molinari

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/foods-high-in-vitamin-B12.php

    Posted at October 10, 2014 01:56:53AM EST by Zach Ambrose

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 09:49:46PM EST by Steven Molinari

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 11, 2014 05:06:40PM EST by Michael Schatz

    Category Steven Molinari Zach Ambrose
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 2 2
    Coherence of arguments: 2.4 2.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3
    Identification of key points: 3.3 3
    Comments: I don't know why you kept talking about the health aspects of a vegetarian diet... Your resolution concerned ethics. I gave you the match because of your mention of the environment which could be construed as an ethical argument... You need to connect the dots though (e.g. bad for environment = unethical b/c animal extinctions, humans aren't the only ones that matter, etc...) Don't know why you two were talking about the health aspect when the resolution concerned ethics. You can't claim to have responded to his environmental argument by just saying "this is where I disagree." Why do you disagree? I thought your argument about WIC was interesting but I don't think the reasoning was very developed. The resolution never claimed to force vegetarianism on everyone, just that it is more ethical. Also, even if vegetables contained more pesticides / unit weight, you need to explain better why that would lead to an ethical dilemma.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Steven Molinari

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition was the only one that really mentioned ethics... neither side discussed ethics in much detail, preferring to focus more on the health.


    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