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 12:15:05AM EST by Nikesh Shah
"11 Facts About How Factory Farms Affect the Environment." Do Something. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
"Factory Farming: Cruelty to Animals." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.
"Mad Cow Disease Fast Facts." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Posted at October 7, 2014 11:31:15PM EST by Reva Agashe
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 8, 2014 04:18:52PM EST by Nikesh Shah
Posted at October 9, 2014 11:39:28PM EST by Reva Agashe
Posted at October 10, 2014 06:58:47PM EST by Nikesh Shah
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 13, 2014 09:12:56AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Nikesh Shah||Reva Agashe|
|Use of evidence:||3.2||2.4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4|
|Identification of key points:||4.2||4.5|
|Comments:||You should start with a clear definition of what you mean by "ethical" so you can relate the impacts you talk about back with the resolution.
A lot of your responses to the opp's arguments are that other things can solve the problem (different farming mechanisms, etc). You should weigh your impacts more directly against your opponent's impacts.
|Good job at defining the key point at the onset of your speech in order to identify why the prop doesn't affirm the resolution. I like how you use it on a subsitive level instead of making it into a procedural thing. You should provide citations so your information can be looked up.
More clearly extend your interpretation of the resolution and ethics.
The decision is for the Opposition: Reva Agashe
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opposition because the proposition's final speech was too much defense going over reasons for why you don't lose instead of why you win. Instead of just rattling off reasons for why the opp isn't perfect and things the opp did wrong (new arguments) you need to spend more time explaining why you won the round and extending your offense. The prop all but drops his initial points about animal rights, which gives me very little to weigh against the pesticides argument. Both sides could do a better job defining what is ethical and framing their argument in relation to the resolution.