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: Devin Gallagher (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Daniel Monzi (Binghamton University)

Judge: Danesh Singh (Binghamton University)

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

  • Devin Gallagher
    Devin Gallagher
    vs.



    Daniel Monzi
    Daniel Monzi
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 6, 2014 06:38:30PM EST by Devin Gallagher

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 8, 2014 02:16:10AM EST by Daniel Monzi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 8, 2014 11:24:51PM EST by Devin Gallagher

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 12:35:24AM EST by Daniel Monzi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 10, 2014 03:52:20PM EST by Devin Gallagher

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 12, 2014 11:42:17PM EST by Danesh Singh

    Category Devin Gallagher Daniel Monzi
    Use of evidence: 3.5 3
    Delivery skill: 3.7 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 3.5
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: Please see the comments below Pleasse see the comments below

    The decision is for the Proposition: Devin Gallagher

    Reason for Decision:

    Both teams: extend your arguments (from the constructive speeches) in the final rebuttals and closing statements and tell the judge why you should win the round. (Generally, you win rounds by summarizing your key points in the last speeches)

    Propositional rebuttal: This speech confused me a bit. Do you give reasons for why economic recession won't happen if we stop eating meat?

    Devin: Perhaps it would have been clearer if you had treated each argument separately, rather than run down a list of arguments all at once. Also, the argument you say in your closing speech about how his arguments are "conceptual" should have been given earlier.

    David: As in Devin's case, it would be a good idea to attack his arguments as well as reiterate your points during speeches.

    This debate is hard to judge since neither of you really engage in the other's arguments. But since the affirmative engages in the negative's arguments a bit, as well as defend his own ideas, he wins the round. Ultimately, public health seems to be the consideration I vote on. Even though Devin isn't entirely clear about how being healthy is ethical (human health and ethics can be understood as separate issues), he makes enough of a case on this point to win the round.

    Daniel's strongest argument is that we need to prevent recession in order to promote health research, but Devin seems to make a case for saying that just by eating less meat we can be healthy. It seems to me, then, that the proposition solves for health without the need for money anyway.


    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