Judge: Erin Bruni Suzuki (Shorin Global)
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 09:40:46PM EST by Reva Karri
Posted at May 19, 2020 08:32:32PM EST by Shea Tamura
Wikipedia on Nuclear Power Plants
GAO Government Accountability Office
Posted at May 21, 2020 12:25:18AM EST by Reva Karri
Posted at May 22, 2020 12:40:37AM EST by Shea Tamura
Bombings of Hiroshima and nagasaki
Uranium mining and health
Posted at May 22, 2020 11:52:55PM EST by Reva Karri
All the sources I used before
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 24, 2020 02:36:50PM EST by Erin Bruni Suzuki
|Category||Reva Karri||Shea Tamura|
|Use of evidence:||3||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||3.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||4|
|Identification of key points:||3||3.4|
|Comments:||With more elaboration, your points could be much stronger. You were very concise and clear, but I felt like your points about the deaths from coal mining and the benefits of nuclear power could have been more deeply explored. Please use more of the time to explore the issues deeply for a more robust debate.||You do a more thorough job of examining issues than your opponent and effectively respond to her points about coal mining, further explaining the dangers of nuclear power, then discussing how coal will no longer be the future of energy. I feel like the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons needs to be explained further.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Shea Tamura
Reason for Decision:
I awarded this debate to Opposition.
I looked at 2 main issues in this debate: Dangers of nuclear power versus the dangers of fossil fuels and the cost.
In terms of the Dangers of nuclear power, the opposition side illustrates with evidence of how nuclear power can cause lasting damage when accidents occur. Proposition then presents compelling evidence for the harms from fossil fuels, smog, and coal mining. Opposition defends this by telling me of the damages of uranium, that uranium mining can be just as dangerous, and explaining that the future of energy will not be with coal but with natural gas and coal. Opposition convinces me that the dangers of nuclear power outweigh the dangers of non-nuclear power.
The other issue was cost. Proposition tells me how nuclear power plants are efficient and cost effective. Opposition then counters this with evidence of the cost and time in building nuclear power plants. I felt like the 2nd Proposition dropped this issue, Opposition did not mention it in closing, and then Proposition came back to it in closing. I feel like the evidence Opposition provides is enough to award this issue to opposition as well, but I want to hear more from both sides.
The issue of nuclear weapons was explored by opposition in this debate. I see this issue as a wash. While proposition never engages, I do feel that Opposition also never provides me with a solid link of how having nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons.
Great debate! Explore issues more deeply for an even better and challenging debate. Best of luck in future rounds and pursuits!!!