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 14, 2014 09:38:21AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at October 15, 2014 03:36:39PM EST by Steven Molinari
Posted at October 17, 2014 01:24:44AM EST by James Suh
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 19, 2014 09:04:43AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 20, 2014 12:30:53AM EST by Josh Cangelosi
|Category||Steven Molinari||James Suh|
|Use of evidence:||3.7||3.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||3.5|
|Identification of key points:||4||3.5|
|Comments:||-Good clash in 2nd prop speech. But do more to extend your original ethics position and explain why that position matters more than anything else. Always bring the attention back to your case. And don't forget to answer pop's "animals don't suffer because they are rendered unconscious."||-In first pop speech, save more time to answer prop's arguments.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Steven Molinari
Reason for Decision:
Things looked like they were swinging opp, but prop makes some critical responses in the last speech that help him win the debate. First, on ethics, prop consistently says that its the actual act of killing animals that is ethically wrong, and opp never really responds. Opp just says that the animals can be killed humanely. But opp needed to do more to explain why it is only the suffering and not the killing that is ethically wrong. Opp could have made this argument by looking at the sort of justification prop gives for why killing is wrong, namely (as Singer says) because animal are capable of suffering. In that way, if the animals could be killed without suffering, prop would lose his basis for saying that killing animals is ethically wrong. In any case, prop also argues that animals suffer prior to their being killed as well. And prop answers opps late argument that the animals currently in the industry will be left to die by arguing that they can be used for other things (which I suppose wont make them suffer?) without killing them.
The only other real issue in the debate is the environment. However, prop answers opps argument about pesticides by saying that organic farms that do not use pesticides are on the rise. (Just out of curiosity, do organic farms actually not use pesticides, or do they just not use genetically modified foods?) But opp needed to provide more analysis about why organic farms would not be a good enough solution to pesticide use. Prop gives some good stats in the last speech to clinch the argument.