Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)
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 13, 2014 10:49:14PM EST by Kara Brown
Posted at October 14, 2014 10:48:20PM EST by Reva Agashe
Posted at October 15, 2014 11:46:19PM EST by Kara Brown
Posted at October 17, 2014 01:51:11AM EST by Reva Agashe
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 17, 2014 06:27:58PM EST by Kara Brown
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 20, 2014 01:21:29AM EST by Josh Cangelosi
|Category||Kara Brown||Reva Agashe|
|Use of evidence:||5.5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||6|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||6|
|Comments:||Great debating and very articulate speaking. Just watch out for overdoing the rhetoric with phrases like "my opponent lies" or "judge, you will vote for prop" etc. Confidence is good, but you don't want to appear arrogant.||Very articulate speaking and excellent coverage in both speeches. Really impressive line-by-line analysis. Way to pull through dropped arguments, weigh impacts, and extend arguments. Very high level debating.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Reva Agashe
Reason for Decision:
Good debate. Both sides speak and debate very well.
On issue of animal rights, opp (in second speech) gives lots of reasons why it is economically viable to reform the meat-eating industry for cruelty, thus taking out props only reasoning for why only vegetarianism is necessary to solve for animal cruelty. Also, prop drops a couple more key arguments on animal cruelty. First, opp says that as long as meat eaters can select to eat meat that has been ethically produced, then it is logically possible for meat eating to be ethical. Second, opp makes the interesting argument that without the meat-eating industry, millions of animals would never have been brought into existence in the first place, and the opportunity to live is in the interest of animals.
On the environment, actually opps turns outweigh the harms of waste and ozone depletion. First, opp says that vegetarianism will lead to water sources being contaminated, with the result that animals diewhich makes the waste issue a wash on both sides. But more importantly, the turn with respect to bees outweighs all of props environmental impacts. Prop never really hashes out any impacts from ozone depletion. And opps link between increased pesticide use and bee death, and the resulting impact of extinction go dropped. The only response prop gives is that even if the bees die, we can hand pollinate all the plants. But opp responds to that argument by explaining the impossibility of pollinating all the plants on such a large scale. And the impact of the bees going extinct is extinction on earth, says opp. So clearly the negative impacts of meat eating do not outweigh the impacts of increased pesticide use (extinction), as prop asserts in the last speech.
Also, I am inclined to agree with opps counter definition because prop drops opps reason why opps definition is better, and props only justification for parameterizing to the US is so she can deny opps grounds with respect to relativism. One should never justify a definition by saying that it was selected so the other team wouldnt have access to arguments otherwise given to them by the resolution. And I dont think that Opps relativism argument was impossible to either defeat or neutralize. For instance, prop could have leveraged her definition of ethical (in the greater good) to explain that opps arguments of select tribes needing meet is outweighed by the greater good of vegetarianism. So I dont buy props argument that she had to parameterize the debate to just the US or face the impossibility of proving the resolution.
In any case, the definition of "this house" doesn't matter at all in this debate because it doesnt matter whether its the US, world, or anybody else believing that vegetarianism is the better ethical choice. Even if I am a US citizen, for instance, the question is still whether I should believe it is the better ethical choice in general, and I would still need to consider whether its the better ethical choice for people in other countries. If the prop wanted to limit the discussion to just the US, she should have included the US bit as part of her definition of ethical: the better ethical choice for people in the US.