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 26, 2020 03:05:45AM EST by Owen Schwartz
Posted at May 26, 2020 11:46:54PM EST by Zoha Askari
Posted at May 27, 2020 09:45:35PM EST by Owen Schwartz
Posted at May 29, 2020 01:32:46PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 30, 2020 02:26:48AM EST by Owen Schwartz
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 11:42:32AM EST by Peter Beadle
|Category||Owen Schwartz||Zoha Askari|
|Use of evidence:||4.8||5.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||5.3|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||5.1|
|Comments:||Constructive: good job and well presented, though be careful with the "lets make it personal" argument as you do not know how the judge might react - keep to facts and evidence.
Rebuttal: You say just enough to keep your contentions alive, but Zoha is running a counterplan, a justification argument contending that the resolution lacks justification because there is a better way. A bit of online research on policy debate boards should find you a block of arguments you can quickly lie down here. Chiefly, that this destroys Proposition ground and is not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why one could not do both - vote for the proposition and also agree to open boarders. You sort of say this which is good, but you could make a stronger more coherent argument here.
Closing: This was strong. More of these arguments should have been in your rebuttal, but ultimately you are right, Zoha's positions are more supportive of your position than detract from it.
|You are an excellent speaker, and as an old Policy Debater I appreciated your strategic choice here and your counterplan. However, it misses the mark. By the end of the round the Proposition is not de-justified - which, in my mind, is the purpose of a counterplan. There is no real disadvantage to voting for the Proposition. you do not tell me it would interfere with ultimately opening borders, that it would cause a backlash that would cause migrants to suffer, etc. So why shouldn't I vote for the Proposition? We can always do open borders too. Owen doesn't make all the technical arguments he could have on this point but he argues enough for his advantages to justify voting for the proposition.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Owen Schwartz
Reason for Decision:
By the end of the round, increasing the ability of migrants in need to migrate freely to the Country of their choice is morally right and provides economic benefits to both the migrant and the Country they move to. The Proposition allows this to happen for tens of millions of refugees. Indeed we should probably go further and open borders entirely, but this step of obligating countries to unconditionally admit refugees is a good thing that should happen. Therefore, I vote for the Proposition.
Fun round, thank you and good luck.
Video from the judge: