Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)
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 12:09:29AM EST by Brian Cheon
Posted at October 7, 2014 09:16:22PM EST by Allen Cooper
Posted at October 9, 2014 11:11:23PM EST by Allen Cooper
Posted at October 10, 2014 11:06:29PM EST by Brian Cheon
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 11, 2014 04:22:28PM EST by Josh Cangelosi
|Category||Brian Cheon||Allen Cooper|
|Use of evidence:||5||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.5||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||4|
|Identification of key points:||5||3.5|
|Comments:||Great pathos throughout and extension of impacts on hunger and water! Also, don't drop jobs, and make more responses on health.||Good speaking and clash. Just develop answers on hunger and water since those are the biggest impacts in the round. And provide some impact weighing of all the positions in the end, explaining why the balance should be tipped to your side.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Brian Cheon
Reason for Decision:
Prop outweighs on the flow.
First, on definitions, the quibble here doesnt really matter since both sides are impacting everything out to humans anyway. But I do agree that Props definition is better because it actually specifies what relating to right and wrong behavior means. Just saying that ethical is related to being ethical is an empty definition. The question is what it means for something to be right and wrong behavior, and Prop is the only one who tells us what that means.
Prop wins on hunger and water. Opp does say that cows can eat grass, but Prop says that this is non-responsive to the claim that the grain animals do in fact eat could feed 925 million people. Opp needed to develop the response that cows can eat grass by saying something like we should allow all that grain to go to feeding people and transition all cow feed to grass, so that we can still be meat eaters and feed the starving people. I think that is the argument Opp wants to make, but it never really comes together.
Prop also wins on the water debate. While Opp says that plants need water too, Prop gives some response stats explaining that animals use more water than plants, and Opp just says this answer is vague. In the end, Prop extends the stat that 780 million people without water could get the water they need if we became vegetarians.
Opps contention about jobs does go uncontested. However, Opp never really pulls this argument through the debate, and hundreds of millions of people being fed and watered outweighs 700,000 people losing jobs.
Opp also wins the debate on health. But again, the impacts of millions dying of starvation and lack of water outweighs the qualitative impact work done on health (decreasing education, economy, etc.). Maybe Opp could have used the drops on jobs and health somehow to outweigh the Props positions on hunger and water.
A few miscellaneous arguments: Opp takes out Props argument on pollution. And Prop explains that just because we have been omnivores does not mean that we ought to be omnivores when doing so jeopardizes the lives of millions.
So as you can see, both sides are winning arguments in a debate with good clash, but the arguments that Prop wins (in my mind) outweigh the arguments that Opp wins. So I would encourage both debaters to do the impact weighing themselves in the round, rather than leaving that weighing to the judge. Otherwise, things might not get weighed the way you like.