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: James Suh (NEI Education) vs. Opposition: Dan Klinger (Binghamton University)

Judge: Michael Schatz (University of Pennsylvania)

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

  • James Suh
    James Suh
    vs.



    Dan Klinger
    Dan Klinger
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 6, 2014 07:49:47PM EST by James Suh

    Citations

    Show

    James Suh

    Posted at October 8, 2014 01:34:59AM EST by Dan Klinger

    Citations

    Show

    http://vegetarian.procon.org

    Posted at October 8, 2014 11:54:53PM EST by James Suh

    Citations

    Show

    http://vegetarian.procon.org/

    Posted at October 10, 2014 02:40:38PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 11, 2014 12:54:42AM EST by James Suh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 11, 2014 05:20:56PM EST by Michael Schatz

    Category James Suh Dan Klinger
    Use of evidence: 3.7 3.6
    Delivery skill: 3.7 3.9
    Coherence of arguments: 3.4 3.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 3.6
    Identification of key points: 4 3.5
    Comments: Don't know why you talked about health impacts when the resolution is on ethics. I liked your arguments on efficiency... should have gotten more into the biology (e.g. trophic levels and 90% loss of energy as you go up). Also, you could have explained more about why more efficient agricultural practices is ethical other than saying that the energy could be used elsewhere and it would require less of a demand on the earth. I thought you did a good job responding to your opponent. Also, I don't know why you don't go more into animal rights. Besides the environment, don't you think its worth mentioning that the animals themselves have the right to life? What about the abhorrent factory farm conditions? You talk a lot about how its bad for earth, but think about how its bad for the animals themselves. Also, a lot of evidence suggests that the meat workers themselves suffer as a result of being forced to commit such atrocities. You won the debate, but there are so many more arguments in your arsenal that could've been used. Don't know why you were talking about health when the resolution was about ethics. You had a tough position to defend and I don't think your Darwinian argument was a wise move considering the ethical dilemmas you can get caught in with that line of reasoning. Your opponent was able to adequately respond to this objection, and though he could have done better in his reasoning, it was enough to defeat your ethical claim.

    The decision is for the Proposition: James Suh

    Reason for Decision:

    Both committed the naturalistic fallacy (the idea that what occurs in nature must be good), but in the end, James was able to provide a more coherent ethical argument that Vegetarianism, by virtue of its greater efficiency and lesser demands on earth, is more ethical.


    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