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: Carolyn Sosa (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Aref Afshar (Binghamton University)

Judge: Carlos Varela (University of Vermont)

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

  • Carolyn Sosa
    Carolyn Sosa
    vs.



    Aref Afshar
    Aref Afshar
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 7, 2014 02:36:54AM EST by Carolyn Sosa

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/
    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/eating-health/
    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/cancer/
    http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk

    Posted at October 8, 2014 02:55:35AM EST by Aref Afshar

    Citations

    Show

    Ivemeyer, S., Smolders, G., Brinkmann, J., Gratzer, E., Hansen, B., Henriksen, B., ... Walkenhorst, M. (2012). Impact of animal health and welfare planning on medicine use, herd health and production in European organic dairy farms. Livestock Science, 63-72

    "Ethic" Def. 1. Merriam Webster Online, Merriam Webster, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

    Gold, Russel. "Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

    Posted at October 9, 2014 02:03:49AM EST by Carolyn Sosa

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 02:58:19AM EST by Aref Afshar

    Citations

    Show

    Rutherford, Donald. "Descartes' Ethics." Stanford University. Stanford University, 06 Aug. 2003. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 11:55:46PM EST by Carolyn Sosa

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/CollegeRelations/AGRICU.htm

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 13, 2014 06:53:44PM EST by Carlos Varela

    Category Carolyn Sosa Aref Afshar
    Use of evidence: 2.6 2.4
    Delivery skill: 3.4 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 2.6 2.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 1.6 3.6
    Identification of key points: 2.1 3.6
    Comments: Your downfall in this debate occurred in the Proposition Rebuttal speech. The Prop Constructive was solid, outlining the 1)environmental impacts of greenhouse gas and deforestation, 2) World Hunger benefits, 3)health implications,and 4) animal abuse horrors.

    Your 2nd speech, the Prop rebuttal, focused on two main arguments: 1) why organic farms based on european models are bad and 2)how much more efficient plant-based farming is compared to the meat industry. The problem is that after the Opposition mentioned organic farms, he advanced arguments relating to 1) economy impacts and 2) the ethical implications of freedom of choice. Neither of these two arguments were addressed in the Proposition Rebuttal. So, when you "drop" those 2 arg's, they become conceded arguments and I, as a judge, am obligated to give them full weight.

    To remedy this situation in future debates, I would suggest you talk to your coach about the art of "flowing" or note taking in debate. It will help you keep track of key arguments to answer in your speech.
    You did a good job pointing out dropped arguments. To improve on this, you need to answer the following question about each dropped argument. Why does this one argument win me the round? This is called impact analysis and is the difference between a constructive and a rebuttal speech.

    I commend you on your creativity on some of the impact scenarios that you hypothesized would happen if the proposition had their way, but your internal links between one event and the next were a bit much to swallow at times. "One thing would lead to this, which would lead to that, which would lead to that" etc...etc...
    You can do that, and create spin on evidence to paint impact scenarios, but they have to be spun off on the back of evidence and citations. Even if dropped by the opponent, it lacks a certain persuasion level without it.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Aref Afshar

    Reason for Decision:

    This round was won by the opposition represented by Aref Afshar.

    Some key arguments were not addressed and thus conceded, which ultimately won the debate for the opposition. The arguments dropped were the economic impacts of eliminating all meat industry, as well as the ethical implications of limiting freedom of choice.


    Good job to both debaters; I thoroughly enjoyed it!

    If there is anything you would like further elaboration on, please feel free to message me and I will be more than glad to expand.


    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