Judge: Ian Miller (University of Oklahoma)
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 01:22:02AM EST by Zoha Askari
Posted at May 20, 2020 09:22:49AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 20, 2020 10:45:31PM EST by Zoha Askari
Posted at May 22, 2020 10:07:02AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Epstein, A. (2015, January 29). How Fossil Fuels Cleaned Up Our Environment. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/28/how-fossil-fuels-cleaned-up-our-environment/#7df8191c1807
Bednarz, D. (2007, July 1). Medicine After Oil. Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://orionmagazine.org/article/medicine-after-oil/
Zyga, L. (2011, May 11). Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs. Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
Rosen, A., Dr. (2016, December 15). Why is nuclear energy not an answer to global warming? Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://www.ippnw.eu/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/Why_nuclear_energy_is_not_an_answer_to_global_warming.pdf
Fry, K. D., Canfield, O., & Carter, R. (2018, June 21). Fossil fuel benefits exceed any downside - Oklahoman.com. Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://oklahoman.com/article/5598786/fossil-fuel-benefits-exceed-any-downside
Rose, M. (2013, February 07). Major nuclear accident would cost France $580 billion: Study. Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-disaster-cost-idUSBRE91603X20130207
Biello, D. (2014, February 07). Is Radioactive Hydrogen in Drinking Water a Cancer Threat? Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-radioactive-hydrogen-in-drinking-water-a-cancer-threat/
Zyga, L. (2011, May 11). Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
CDC - Savannah River Site Mortality Study - NIOSH Study Summary. (2020, April 08). Retrieved May 22, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/savannah.html
Posted at May 22, 2020 10:25:49PM EST by Zoha Askari
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 23, 2020 12:22:22PM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Zoha Askari||Danilo Diaz|
|Use of evidence:||4.9||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.2||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.8||4.5|
|Comments:||Great speeches - you went fast but you are very articulate. Consider comparing evidence qualifications (you did a little on your closing) earlier in the debate.||You were really persuasive - but you should continue your pollution arguments later in the debate. They would help combat the environmental racism points made by the proposition.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Zoha Askari
Reason for Decision:
I ended up voting for the pro because of the qualifications of their evidence on sustainability/timeframe and the strong argument about environmental racism.
Both teams agree that sustainability is really important in this debate - but there is very comparison between your claims. Only the proposition provides qualifications for their evidence so this framework goes slightly towards them.
The timeframe question is also the same way - it is mostly a wash but the proposition included qualifications again for their evidence.
When I look at the impacts I have to compare possible job loss to environmental racism. The final speeches were good on these points, however the opposition did not adequately address the pro's claim about fossil fuel plants being built around poor communities, causing health problems that continue for generations. This was a very persuasive argument to me. I think that if the opposition had extended some of their arguments about nuclear power plants harming the communities they are around it would help combat this and make it a closer debate.