Judge: Dan Weiser (Woodstock Day School)
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 08:41:52PM EST by Carson Collins
Posted at May 27, 2020 09:16:24PM EST by Carson Collins
Posted at May 29, 2020 06:43:53PM EST by Carson Collins
Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 10:17:40AM EST by Dan Weiser
|Category||Carson Collins||andrew cui|
|Use of evidence:||1.5||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||3|
|Identification of key points:||3||3|
|Comments:||I think you did a good job of using logic throughout the debate. However you fail to cite any hard evidence or examples. At the end of the debate you refer to evidence, but never cite any. You say "there is evidence that makes the opposite case" in your rebuttal, but provide none. This made it very difficult to vote for you as your opponent had evidence and examples to support his argument. I think you got lucky that he simply did not spend enough time developing the argument he needed to to counteract your rightful argument that he is in an air conditioned room saying if others live like him it will destroy the world. I agree with that one. But i also agree that a rapid influx of people could be harmful - there is evidence out there of how countries can deal with it but you sort of blow this argument off and that was dangerous.||I think you bring up some good points. The best one being the Hungarian and Austrian crisis. This argument almost won the debate - however - you did not provide any evidence or specifics on this issue. I attempted to do the work for you - and wanted to learn more - but i found no evidence of the harmful impact of this and in fact found evidence that they handled it beautifully and its a model for how to relocate so many people so quickly. So when i go back to your arguments I do agree with your opponent that you are in a home with electricity saying that if refugees live like you it will be terrible, and therefore we should let them die in their war town countries - i cant vote on that. This is a difficult side to defend - i think you identify correctly that the idea of forcing undeveloped countries and unconditionally is the area to focus on here - but you dont spend enough time developing this nor do you provide enough evidence to make this strong enough to vote.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Carson Collins
Reason for Decision:
This is a difficult round to judge. Ultimately i vote for the proposition. He established that human light is the highest value in the round and made a consistent case that letting in refugees will protect their life - none of the other arguments in the round were particularly clear or had strong enough impacts to deny that letting a refugee in will help them.