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 12:05:36AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at May 20, 2020 02:28:10AM EST by Owen Schwartz
Posted at May 20, 2020 09:28:57PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 22, 2020 02:17:56AM EST by Owen Schwartz
Posted at May 22, 2020 10:58:38PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 24, 2020 01:52:01PM EST by Peter Beadle
|Category||Seralena Leeson-Schatz||Owen Schwartz|
|Use of evidence:||3.6||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.4||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||5.3|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||5.2|
|Comments:||Constructive: strong opening argument and good structure. Though do not assume the judge agrees that fossil fuels are causing climate change, or even that climate change is real/bad.
Rebuttal: you have some good clash with some of Owen's arguments and your speech style is interesting and convincing but you need to back more statements with evidence, and in one case you discount your own cite relative to how quickly Nuclear waste decays ("A bit of a stretch"). If you don't believe your evidence then its hard for the judge to.
Closing: Unfortunately you largely do not respond to Owen's cost/time/hazard arguments, merely repeating your belief that NP has fewer emissions and is coming eventually anyway. At the very end of your rebuttal you raise for the first time the serious impacts of FF use - oil spills, coal disasters, etc. These are the right arguments to make and if in an earlier speech it may have effected the outcome, but at the very end of the last rebuttal when Owen has no opportunity to respond, these arguments are too new for me to consider.
|Constructive: well structured and compelling, but you have 40 seconds left and should have delved in to the cost/time/hazard impacts of NP development.
Rebuttal: strong clash with Seralena's arguments, and you do a good job of discussing the NRC evidence - though as I point out in my video you could have done even more. Your evidence on how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, its extremely high cost, and how many plants we would need to build to match FF use are the key deciding points in the round, but these arguments should have made some appearance in the constructive so your opponent has a greater opportunity to respond. But there is an opportunity to respond so I allow. Just be careful about this.
The decision is for the Opposition: Owen Schwartz
Reason for Decision:
By the end of the round, Nuclear Power may be more efficient and greatly reduces pollution, but renewable alternatives exist, building nuclear power plants takes a long time at a very high cost, and there are real hazards to nuclear power from dealing with highly radioactive nuclear waste to industrial accidents (Chernobyl & Fukushima). Thus, there is little justification to switch energy production to nuclear power and real potential costs and hazards. Therefore, I vote in favor of the opposition. Thank you for the round and good luck.
Video from the judge: