Judge: Mike Davis (James Madison 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 03:40:32PM EST by Connor Harris
Posted at May 19, 2020 07:41:03PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls
Posted at May 20, 2020 02:50:53PM EST by Connor Harris
Posted at May 21, 2020 07:57:46PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls
Posted at May 22, 2020 03:28:43PM EST by Connor Harris
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 24, 2020 08:16:06PM EST by Mike Davis
|Category||Connor Harris||Teresa Nuckolls|
|Use of evidence:||4.8||5.1|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||3.9|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.3||4.6|
|Identification of key points:||4||4.3|
|Comments:||I really enjoyed your initial speech. You do a great job using evidence to provide your points. The comparison in death rates is very persuasive. Make sure you carry that evidence throughout your speeches.||Your delivery is very strong and I like the diversity of arguments that you present. You could do more to make sure that your evidence gets carried through from speech to speech.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Teresa Nuckolls
Reason for Decision:
This was a very close debate that comes down to just a few key issues.
Both sides could have done a lot more to make sure that you are responding to your opponents arguments. You are both very good at explaining your own arguments but are missing some key places where you could be responding to your opponents.
Also, both sides do not do much to prioritize which arguments are important. You both assume that too many of your arguments are correct and don't work to explain why your arguments matter more than your opponents.
I think that the Proposition wins that nuclear power is better than our current reliance on fossil fuels. He also wins that nuclear is cheaper than renewable energy, but more work needs to be done to explain why the cost is relevant.
I think the opposition wins that renewables are less likely to cost lives and do damage to the environment than nuclear energy (although the harms are mitigated to some extent by the proposition). I also think that the opposition wins that renewables can work (the proposition needs to to have more evidence that renewables don't work and that evidence should be presented earlier in the debate).
The opposition also wins that nuclear mining which is necessary for nuclear power is harmful to native Americans who live in the area. The proposition does explain that spills are not frequent, but I do think the opposition does more to explain why mining and storage of waste is bad for Native Americans, but this argument could have been impacted more.
I end up voting for the opposition because I am persuaded the renewables are both possible and do the least amount of damage of any energy source. The argument that renewables are more expensive does not provide enough offense for the proposition.
Either side could have made this debate easier by explaining how these arguments interact. I have to apply some of my own analysis to compare the various impacts.