Judge: Christian Chessman (University of Florida)
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 02:40:07AM EST by Danielle Roman
"Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk." PCRM.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk>.
"Being a Vegetarian." Brown University. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2014. <http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition_%26_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php>.
"Eating for Your Health." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/eating-health/>.
"Top 10 Reasons Why It's Green to Go Veggie." Down to Earth Organic and Natural. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2014. <https://www.downtoearth.org/go-veggie/environment/top-10-reasons>.
"Time for Change." Are Cows the Cause of Global Warming? N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2014. <http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2>.
Posted at October 14, 2014 11:17:41PM EST by Brian Cheon
Posted at October 15, 2014 11:04:45PM EST by Danielle Roman
"U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists | Cornell Chronicle." U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists | Cornell Chronicle. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. <http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat>.
"Vegan Myths Exposed." PETA Vegan Myths Exposed Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. <http://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-myths-exposed/>.
Posted at October 17, 2014 12:36:35AM EST by Brian Cheon
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 17, 2014 11:44:55AM EST by Danielle Roman
"Alternatives to Using Pesticides." - Southern States Cooperative. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.southernstates.com/articles/pesticide-alternatives.aspx>.
"Pest Resistant Crops." Gene Watch UK. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.genewatch.org%2Fsub-568238>.
"Tell Your Representative: Co-sponsor the Saving America's Pollinators Act (HR 2692)." Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://www.pesticide.org/tell-us-about-your-call#bill>.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 17, 2014 10:58:28PM EST by Christian Chessman
|Category||Danielle Roman||Brian Cheon|
|Use of evidence:||3||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.6||3.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.9||3.8|
|Identification of key points:||3||3|
|Comments:||You were very responsive to the neg - points for that. You don't extend nearly enough of your case, though - e.g. the reasoning why you're right instead of the reasoning why your opponent is wrong. I don't have a well-established explanation of the relationship between warming, health harms, nonhuman animal death, and ethics by the end of the debate. Explain to me how vegetarianism relates to each of these concepts, and how those concepts relate in turn to the resolution. I am especially disappointed that the "nonhuman animal ethics" argument loses explanation ground by the end of the debate.||Lots of filler language. Repetition of the term "judge" repeatedly. Analysis was relatively shallow - the link between pesticides, bees, and human extinction, for example, was never established even if I take every neg claim at face value. The neg's claim that more vegetables mean more pesticides may be true, but how many more? Enough to kill some bees? Most bees? Are bees the only method of plant reproduction? Will this occur too quickly for humans to adapt? Major questions for the neg's arguments throughout the debate.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Danielle Roman
Reason for Decision:
I vote aff on warming and human health benefits. Both of these arguments could use more development, but no more development than would be required to accept the neg's arguments. I think the affirmative successfully mitigates the risk of the pesticides DA (alternatives solve, no intrinsic link to the topic, the aff outweighs) and - in winning a unique benefit to vegetarianism, answers the "equal moral worth" argument from the neg.
The pesticides argument was innovative, but was inadequately developed.