Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
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 6, 2014 11:42:24PM EST by Shayne Wells
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 8, 2014 02:09:34AM EST by Kenneth Ni
The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution
Leslie C. Aiello and Peter Wheeler
Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1995) , pp. 199-221
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Posted at October 9, 2014 02:08:24AM EST by Shayne Wells
Posted at October 10, 2014 01:10:42AM EST by Kenneth Ni
Posted at October 10, 2014 08:57:13PM EST by Shayne Wells
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 12, 2014 04:29:58PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Shayne Wells||Kenneth Ni|
|Use of evidence:||3.5||3.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.3||3.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||3.5|
|Comments:||You should have citations for your arguments. I like the way you define the resolution for the debate. I like your five separate contentions since they each contribute to understanding why it's a more ethical choice. Your weakest one is that it's cheaper. I don't think that it proves it's more ethical, but just better for consumers. I'd have saved that argument for a rebuttal speech if the opp attacks the accessibility of vegetarianism.||You have a lot of background static noise. Check out the video section for easy editing tools you can use to eliminate that background noise. You need to do more explaining why economic arguments can undermine the ethics argument. Ie even if it might be bad to cause a shift to vegetarianism, you need to prove that it isn't more ethical, which requires you to weigh your impacts against their harms on the level of ethics. If you're going to make the speed argument you need to implicate it more fully as a procedural argument.
Why is environmental destruction unethical? You need to win the impact to that argument to win the debate otherwise environmental destruction in of itself doesn't negate the proposition.
The decision is for the Proposition: Shayne Wells
Reason for Decision:
While the opposition has a lot of disadvantages to the proposition's argument, there isn't an effective framing as why this would disprove that not eating meat is more ethical. If the opposition related his arguments back to ethics and advanced a utilitarianism ethics I would vote for the opposition since I think the prop doesn't do a good job confronting all of the opp's argument. However, without a better framing by the opp while the opp wins the trees (specific arguments) the prop wins the forest (the overall picture/story of the round).