Judge: Peter Beadle (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 19, 2020 02:55:52AM EST by Owen Schwartz
Posted at May 19, 2020 05:46:06PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at May 21, 2020 02:41:55AM EST by Owen Schwartz
Posted at May 21, 2020 10:58:58PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at May 23, 2020 03:06:40AM EST by Owen Schwartz
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 24, 2020 12:42:44PM EST by Peter Beadle
|Category||Owen Schwartz||Eesha Kodali|
|Use of evidence:||5.4||5.2|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.3||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.3||5.3|
|Identification of key points:||5.1||5.2|
|Comments:||Very strong constructive, though as I mention in my video, I felt there needed to be a greater impact re: why are FF's so bad - climate, health, etc.
Strong Rebuttal, though a bit of a missed opportunity to raise FF environmental/health impacts eg.: Exxon Validiz, Deep Water Horizon, pipeline disasters. Still you are able to carry across argument that NE is safer (as safe?) and more cost effective than FF's
Closing: the "1.8 million" might have been rolled out a bit too dramatically, and this really should have been in one of your earlier speeches. But for your opponent also citing the same study first, I likely would have docked you for leaving this to your last speech when your opponent wouldn't have had a chance to respond. Closing is a summation, not the place for new evidence.
|Constructive: very strong. Good road map, good clash against your opponent's points, but as he had some missed opportunities I feel you miss one by not offering me renewable energy alternatives that don't draw the impacts of NE. I think this would have been a very strong counter point.
Rebuttal: as delivered it was very strong. Great clash against his arguments, and I thought your rhetorical arguments re: imagine how bad NE would be if we scaled it up to replace FF, and safety in lesser developed countries were very strong, but needed evidentiary support. But you didn't extend your $6-9B cost argument and your citation to the same NASA study that Owen uses to try and suggest that NE is unsafe trips you up. That study, and the article you cite, actually stand for the exact opposite proposition. A lesson to both of you is that I end up looking at citations because the debate on the impacts wasn't as developed as it could have been
The decision is for the Proposition: Owen Schwartz
Reason for Decision:
By the end of the round, Nuclear Energy while suffering some safety and environmental problems still stands as being more efficient, with a lower environmental impact and safer to human lives (per a NASA study cited by both participants) than the continued use of Fossil Fuels. Thus I find the Proposition justified and vote accordingly.
This was a really good round and I commend both participants, though as explained in my video, in some ways it was also my most frustrating round thus far. Some big missed opportunities on both sides, but very well argued. Thank you and best of luck to the both of you.
Video from the judge: