Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: This house believes that being a vegetarian is a better ethical choice than meat eating.
 Hanna Sanchez |
vs.
|
Frank Santos |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 7, 2014 06:17:11PM EST by Frank Santos
Stats about lost excess food in US: http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/network-programs/food-waste.aspx?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=foodwaste
Katharine Milton, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at Berkeley University "A Hypothesis to explain the role meat-eating in human evolution" pg 11 http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf
World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
Karl Marx, "The Commodity" pg 126 https://blackboard.binghamton.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2032859-dt-content-rid-9149530_2/courses/ENG310-01_FALL14/marx_commodity.pdf
Posted at October 9, 2014 04:11:15PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 11, 2014 12:33:31AM EST by Hanna Sanchez
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 12, 2014 05:00:18PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
| Category | Hanna Sanchez | Frank Santos |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 2.8 | 4.5 |
| Delivery skill: | 3.6 | 4.9 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 3 | 5 |
| Identification of key points: | 4.5 | 3 |
| Comments: | You should provide citations for your speech. Also with my speakers turned all the way up you're very hard to hear. You should edit your videos to amplify the sound. There's a video on that in the video section of this website. I like how you define the parameters of the debate but I think you could do a better job relating each of your contentions back to that framing of the round. You need to go back to your initial framing of the round in regards to what would determine "more ethical." Doing that clearer would really help you in establishing why your answers win you the round versus just not lose the round. |
You should lead with your offense and not just arguments against their citations. Make your citation argument but lead with stronger reasons for why you should win. I like how you point out how the prop's arguments don't necessarily link back to ethics. However, again, you should go the next step and show why it would be unethical to make the shift as well. You're very responsive to your opponent but not as good at developing your own unique arguments against the prop. You're wasting a lot of time making procedural arguments versus just extending the substance of your arguments since you were winning a bunch of those arguments. It wouldn't hurt making the argument quickly but then giving the substance of the argument. |
The decision is for the Opposition: Frank Santos
Reason for Decision:
I do vote on the procedural argument for two reasons: (1) I leave the question of the forfeit up to the opponent, which has caused several forfeits to happen when they haven't needed to; and (2) The proposition while explaining how there was time didn't provide offense against the procedural argument. I evaluate procedurals the same way I do other elements of debate, via an offense/defense paradigm. You should make arguments concerning thinking with more limited time constraints are good, it checks abuse on being from the institution that programmed the platform, etc. Make sure you always have offense regardless of what type of debate it's about.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
