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.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 09:09:05AM EST by Peter Beadle
|Category||Maria Perez||Bray Krumenacker|
|Use of evidence:||5.2||4.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.2||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||5.1||4.2|
|Comments:||Constructive is well structured, frames the debate to come and give yous a good base to start from. You also deliver it very well.
Rebuttal: Your point by point refutation of the arguments made by the opposition is strong and well delivered. You handle the Turkey challenge especially well.
Closing: you could have had a stronger refutation to your opponent's arguments here, but you are able to extend your economic impacts and flip your opponent's argument by arguing that allowing unconditional refugee acceptance would better help share the burden between nations.
|Constructive: good constructive that puts out some stronger counters to the Proponant, but you had 1:15 left at the end, and this time should have been used to introduce your alternatives argument. Also missed opporunity to point out much of proponent's economic benefit cards are US-centric and do not carry over to the rest of the world - your Africa and Turkey arguments would dovetail with that well and could have been developed even more.
Rebuttal: Your argument that it would be better to address underlying problems is strong and the right one to make, but its new in a rebuttal and would have benefited from more development if introduced earlier. Making this argument in the rebuttal means your opponent has the last word
The decision is for the Proposition: Maria Perez
Reason for Decision:
This was a good round but there are some missed opportunities to develop arguments on both sides as I discuss in the attached video. By the end of the round the Proposition has succeeded in establishing there are economic benefits to allowing unconditional refugee admission as well as moral justifications, which satisfy the opening framework that was never contested by the opponent. Though there may be reason to believe there is a better alternative, this does not get fully developed. hence I vote for the Proposition.
Video from the judge: