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: Paul H. Lim (NEI Education) vs. Opposition: Daniel Santos (Binghamton University)

Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)

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

  • Paul H. Lim
    Paul H. Lim
    vs.



    Daniel Santos
    Daniel Santos
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2014 11:31:38PM EST by Paul H. Lim

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/

    http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/cancer-8/mis-cancer-news-102/colorectal-cancer-644848.html

    Posted at October 14, 2014 01:56:02PM EST by Daniel Santos

    Citations

    Show

    Uvin, Peter. "The state of world hunger." Nutrition reviews 52.5 (1994): 151-161.

    Neil Stephens. "Growing Meat in Laboratories: The Promise, Ontology, and Ethical Boundary-Work of Using Muscle Cells to Make Food." Configurations 21.2 (2013): 159-181. Project MUSE. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

    Hawthorne, Mark. "Inside the Life of a Factory Farm Worker." VegNews. N.p., 01 May 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. <http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=5732&catId=1>.

    http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/cancer-8/mis-cancer-news-102/colorectal-cancer-644848.html

    Posted at October 16, 2014 01:06:22AM EST by Paul H. Lim

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?dbid=19&tname=faq

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-32381/Meat-vegetarian-best-you.html

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/the-minimum-wage-cure-for-illegal-immigration/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

    http://www.aflac.com/individuals/realcost/source/

    Posted at October 16, 2014 06:17:03PM EST by Daniel Santos

    Citations

    Show

    Neil Stephens. "Growing Meat in Laboratories: The Promise, Ontology, and Ethical Boundary-Work of Using Muscle Cells to Make Food." Configurations 21.2 (2013): 159-181. Project MUSE. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

    Gregory, Christian, et al. "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation Leads to Modest Changes in Diet Quality." Economic Research Report 147 (2013).

    Posted at October 18, 2014 02:35:49AM EST by Paul H. Lim

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.bread.org/hunger/budget/pdf/snap.pdf

    http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/vegetables-why.html

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.pdf

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/a-lab-grown-burger-gets-a-taste-test.html?_r=0

    Thank you Judge and Opponent for taking part in this debate! I had a good time. :)

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 20, 2014 02:18:23AM EST by Josh Cangelosi

    Category Paul H. Lim Daniel Santos
    Use of evidence: 5 5.5
    Delivery skill: 5.5 5.5
    Coherence of arguments: 5.5 5.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 5
    Identification of key points: 5 5
    Comments: -Good speaking in first speech. Great evidence, and articulate speaking. Good under view as well.
    Just lost the video filter. It makes me dizzy.
    -Good speaking and clash in second speech, but I would spend more time and analysis on the vitro meat argument.
    -Good speaking and argumentation in first speech. Interesting arguments. But spend more time on health.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Daniel Santos

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a very close debate that could have gone either way. Ultimately, I vote opp because the jobs contention, which goes completely dropped, is the easiest place to vote. The cruelty contention is sort of a wash. Opp says that animal cruelty can be solved via vitro meat, and prop waits until the last speech to question to how well developed this technology is and whether it can prove a feasible alternative to all animal-bred meat eating. In any case, prop should have made more offensive arguments showing that this technology is not a viable alternative. But Im still left with the last thought that maybe vitro meat can solve for animal cruelty, and maybe it cant.

    There is good clash on the hunger contention, so that contention becomes pretty much a wash, and opp kicks out of the choice contention. Opp does undercover the health contention, but the problem is that prop does not pull through the drops on health in the rebuttal. I think prop could have won if he gave more responses to the vitro meat earlier, pulled through more of the analysis and stats on health, responded to the jobs argument, and outweighed the jobs argument with the health argument. If meat eating really is a leading cause of disease and death, then prop could have used the magnitude of such harms to outweigh the thousands of jobs lost.


    1 Comment

    Thank you Daniel for debating with me. This was an exciting and challenging debate! Good luck in your next rounds. https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/wink.gif - Paul H. Lim on October 20, 2014 at 10:07PM EST

    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