Judge: Brittney Bleyle (Austin Peay State University)
Resolution: Resolved: Governments should implement a meat tax.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 5, 2020 11:45:09PM EST by Juliet Quisenberry
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 7, 2020 03:23:57PM EST by Juliet Quisenberry
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 17, 2020 12:15:01AM EST by Brittney Bleyle
|Category||David Kim||Juliet Quisenberry|
|Use of evidence:||3.8||5.2|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.1||4.1|
|Identification of key points:||3.9||4.8|
|Comments:||Proposition Constructive: Great speaking style, you are very clear with your speaking and you also do a good job making eye contact with the camera instead of looking down the whole time. Proposition rebuttal: You say your opponents arguments aren't responsive to the fact that you said the amount of supplies animals are using is at a dangerously high rate. Remember to go over your impact. Explain why it is a huge problem for animals to be using these supplies at such a dangerously high rate and why this is the most important issue in the round. I like the fact that you defined what omnivore meant in your favor, that was really clever. Also, you took your opponents statement about vegetarianism being healthy and used it in your favor as well, which was a great move on your part. In the proposition closing, I like the fact that you responded to the opponents claims about vitamins with stating that you can get these vitamins from vitamin pills and gummies; however, I think that you need to go more in depth and make a statement about the accessibility and affordability of these vitamin pills and gummies since your opponent is making lots of arguments in regards to how being a healthy vegetarian is difficult because of the cost and accessibility issues. When responding to your opponents arguments about eating fast food, make sure to include evidence about why most Americans actually eat at home and would be able to easily switch to a vegetarian diet. You always want to combat evidence with evidence if you can. You need to focus on which impact I should vote on in your final statement. An example of your final statement could be: You are going to vote proposition in this round because I have successfully proven that the health benefits of being vegetarian outweigh every other impact in this round. I have proven over and over again that my opponents claims of inaccessibility and affordability are not true. Even if you believe that they are true, you will still vote for the proposition, because if even if only some of the population will be able to adapt it is still more beneficial than the status quo.||Great debate! You have a great speaking style, you sound very confident and you speak clearly and concisely. Your statement about humans being omnivores needs evidence backing up why humans are meant to be omnivores and why they could not live without meat. It also contradicts a little with your statement about how you can have a healthy diet as a vegetarian. Great use of evidence in your rebuttal about how people will choose unhealthy options as a vegetarian because of affordability and accessibility, it really helps take down the proposition's comments about how vegetarianism is healthy. You expand upon your argument about how humans can't get certain nutrients from plants which is great and was what I was looking for earlier, but it would have been better if you would have included that argument earlier in the debate. When you are explaining why you should win the debate, make sure you reiterate the main impact that you are focusing on. Also make sure you don't say I think I should win this debate; it is better to say I'm going to win this debate because of these reasons. For example, you could say I'm going to win this debate because I have successfully proved via my evidence that even though vegetarianism might be healthy in some cases, it is too unaffordable and inaccessible for people to choose those options; therefore, they will choose less healthy options which would lead to an increase in obesity and therefore cause a rise in early deaths. This is the most important impact in the round and should viewed before any other argument my opponent has made.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Juliet Quisenberry
Reason for Decision:
I ended up voting for the opposition. The opposition's points and evidence about how vegetarianism isn't affordable and is inaccessible to most people were persuasive, and weren't thoroughly addressed by the proposition. The opposition made the claim that because of these reasons there would be a decline in health in the general population compared to the status quo, which is why the proposition's plan to impose a meat tax would do more harm than good.