Judge: Arturo Feliz (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 11, 2020 10:40:32AM EST by Connor Harris
Kimberly Amadeo 03/13/2020 [20 years of corporate economic analysis], TheBalance.com, Universal Healthcare in Different Countries, Pros and Cons of each, https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211
10/14/2019, Probability of dying per 1000 live Births, https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.525?lang=en
1/30/2020, University of Pennsylvania, Medicare for All: Comparison of financing options, https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/1/30/medicare-for-all-background
Posted at May 13, 2020 08:05:59PM EST by Connor Harris
No new sources since last video
Posted at May 15, 2020 12:53:58PM EST by Connor Harris
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 15, 2020 06:02:16PM EST by Arturo Feliz
|Category||Connor Harris||Joy Akiyama|
|Use of evidence:||4.4||1.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||2.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.8||2.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.1||2.7|
|Comments:||Connor Good use of evidence. Lots of impacts. Good warranting of your claims. I felt like the beginning of your closing speech was a bit rushed and time was wasted. Some claims were just good faith claims (no evidence) that I don't necessarily buy (Ex. "the government will develop tech to make it cheaper")
Some really cool analysis like when you proposed that increased population could lower cost by spreading the cost among more.
|Joy Interesting point brought up about costs of covering the elderly. I do have a problem with this case. It's hard to buy. It's a bit cold.
I liked your demeanor in round. Keep working hard. Warrant your claims a bit more. Explain to me more and you'll do better.
The decision is for the Proposition: Connor Harris
Reason for Decision:
Proposition: Stick to your strengths in case. I buy life expectancy, productivity, infant death rate without need for evidence. Lower drug costs and GDP comparison will definitely require evidence.
Opposition. Even if I'm willing to buy that it costs too much, it's hard to buy such a cold argument. Proposition argues that it's immoral to not do it just because it's expensive and I tend to agree.
This kind of case is hard to make. I usually prefer trying to find a human harm/benefit to outweigh rather than putting numbers against lives.
In the end I think prop's impacts were heavier and outweigh costs of the elderly, besides the fact that the implicit solution (to just let them die) is a bit harsh and cold.