Judge: Emily Mendelson (Binghamton University)
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 18, 2020 02:57:36PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
www.epa.gov > ghgemissions > sources - greenhouse-gas-emissions
Posted at May 19, 2020 10:31:17PM EST by Zoha Askari
Nuclear Energy is Bad for the Environment
Nuclear Energy is Bad for Human Rights
Prefer Other Forms of Renewable Energy
Posted at May 20, 2020 09:29:38PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at May 22, 2020 01:01:34AM EST by Zoha Askari
Posted at May 22, 2020 02:54:24PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 23, 2020 09:57:00PM EST by Emily Mendelson
|Category||Imogen Kurtz||Zoha Askari|
|Use of evidence:||4.7||4.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||4.8|
|Identification of key points:||4.9||5.1|
|Comments:||Good job! Be careful about the speed you're spreading at, I would consider working on some enunciation/clarity drills before you increase the speed at which you're speaking. You do a great job answering your opponent's defense, but make sure to answer her offense even if you want to make an argument about citations. It's important to not only answer the form of the argument, but also its content. Overall, it was great!||Great job! I like how you collapse to your best arguments in the last speech and provide a clear roadmap for me. You may want to provide the source names when you give direct facts just to avoid the citations argument and give your arguments more credibility. Additionally, I think you can do more work on direct impact comparison in the last speech. Overall, it was great!|
The decision is for the Opposition: Zoha Askari
Reason for Decision:
Great job in this debate! I vote negative because I think the combination of uranium mining as a human rights violation as well as the potential for renewable energy makes the opposition's stance more preferable than switching to nuclear energy. The disproportionate impact uranium mining has on indigenous populations is functionally conceded throughout the debate, and I consider it one of the most important impacts in the round. I do not evaluate the ethics argument nor citations argument as neither has an impact, and the "believe in science" argument is a wash as both sides are citing scientific facts. I think the argument about long lasting environmental effects due to nuclear power outweighs the main impact argument of the affirmative that nuclear power may not be perfect, but can buy us some time. Additionally, even if I do not believe that renewable energy is a preferable alternative, the burden of the negative is to prove that we should not switch to from fossil fuels to nuclear power, which I think has been successfully done.