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 June 1, 2020 02:00:46PM EST by Zoella Lin
Posted at June 2, 2020 05:20:39PM EST by Athena Matin-aw
Tbe script for my speech is posted in the comments section of the video. Thank you!
Posted at June 4, 2020 12:08:52AM EST by Zoella Lin
Posted at June 5, 2020 01:08:53AM EST by Athena Matin-aw
Thank you for an excellent round!
Posted at June 5, 2020 09:20:03PM EST by Zoella Lin
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 7, 2020 11:07:25AM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Zoella Lin||Athena Matin-aw|
|Use of evidence:||4.6||4.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.6||4.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.4||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.6||4.6|
|Comments:||I think that your fiat arguments are less relevant in this format because the resolution is a "should" type of question, not about policymaking. You also concede that they solve some violence, which complicates these arguments.
Props to you for recognizing your opponents confusion and making your speech accessible.
|Great speeches - despite being confused at first about the formatting of your opponent's first speech you put together excellent responses.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Athena Matin-aw
Reason for Decision:
This was a very close debate. I ended up narrowly voting for the opposition.
First, the opposition wins that certain people should go to prison. Their arguments about murderers/rapists/racist people endangering the public were persuasive. The main counter-argument from the proposition was that abolition includes solutions to these problems that we can't imagine yet. However, the proposition includes a few responses.
1. That white privilege may still exist no matter what - which means that these solutions may fail
2. That rehabilitation will be at least as effective as those solutions.
I also think that these "we can't imagine them" arguments also complicate the proposition's later arguments that call for more detail in the opposition's rehab. arguments.
Second, the opposition wins that the problems the proposition points out (plea bargains, discriminatory policing, ect.) would still exist because they are deeply rooted in society, however it is still good to try to reform these institutions. The example of the norway system is persuasive to me because it shows a concrete way to change the implementation of criminal justice.
I think that the proposition should have included more examples of progress and reform failing. This would make your arguments much more persuasive. Absent this, there are more examples from the opposition of reform making tangible changes to the justice system, which strengthens their arguments.
I also think that the proposition should have included an example of what one of the solutions under abolition could be. It would be more persuasive to me to give a more concrete explanation.