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 25, 2020 11:34:18PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at May 26, 2020 01:59:29PM EST by Connor Harris
Posted at May 27, 2020 10:31:18PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at May 29, 2020 10:12:13PM EST by Eesha Kodali
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 31, 2020 01:55:24PM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Eesha Kodali||Connor Harris|
|Use of evidence:||4.3||4.4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.7||4.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.6||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.6||4.8|
|Comments:||Great speeches - and I thought that your closing was particularly good because of your questioning about the conditions. I think that this should have happened earlier in the debate though.
I think that you can better answer their terrorism argument by arguing that terrorists aren't "legal refugees" like the topic says.
|You had some detailed conditions but I think that you could make your arguments more persuasive if you included more studies or statistics to back up your arguments.
I would consider whether your arguments apply to "legal refugees" or not but that wasn't brought up in this debate.
The decision is for the Proposition: Eesha Kodali
Reason for Decision:
I think both teams in this debate were too focused on arguing against the details of the opposing argument without spending as much time concentrating on a single strong argument that they can impact out. Furthermore, without an argument about how I should evaluate impacts, this debate gets a little messy. Overall there are a lot of components to the debate, but not a ton of analysis about their relative importance.
The biggest component was terrorism, followed by disease. In the terrorism portion of the debate, the opposition wins that some people might be radicalized, however I am unsure how the condition would be implemented to check for this. The proposition questions the ability of immigration authorities to make unbiased judgements about who is or is not dangerous. The proposition also has an argument about international instability caused by not letting legal refugees in.
In the oppositions earlier speeches they argued that there is also instability from having a lot of refugees leave, however this was less supported by evidence and wasn't brought up later in the debate. I think that if this argument was a bit more developed I would have a harder time deciding the terrorism portion of the debate.
The disease portion was pretty undeveloped, but I think that the proposition is right that these restrictions already exist, especially for "legal refugees" like the topic states.
Overall, this was a very close debate. Both sides could have improved their positions by focusing on developing a few choice arguments and including a way for me to evaluate them (i.e. is human life the most important?, or individual freedom?, or the economy?, ect.).