Judge: Emily Mendelson (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 June 2, 2020 10:31:27PM EST by Zoha Askari
Posted at June 3, 2020 04:48:30PM EST by Bray Krumenacker
The Sydney Morning Herald
Posted at June 4, 2020 11:21:58PM EST by Zoha Askari
Posted at June 5, 2020 04:53:06PM EST by Bray Krumenacker
Https://www.acesdvorg/wo-content/uploads/2014/06/NNEDV GPS Tipsheet 1212.pdf
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 6, 2020 08:41:53PM EST by Emily Mendelson
|Category||Bray Krumenacker||Zoha Askari|
|Use of evidence:||4.4||5.1|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||5.4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||5|
|Identification of key points:||4||5.3|
|Comments:||Your first speech in this debate is definitely your best speech, and in future debates I would try to reiterate some of the points from your first speech in your later speeches to explain your point even more. Keep in mind that in this debate you had to defend abolition, which I don't think is happening in the last two speeches you give. I would also be careful about some of the phrasing you use, such as "America was built of immigration," because especially in the case of this debate, America was built off of slavery and antiblackness. That being said, I think you do a great job considering you're new to debate!||I think you do a great job in this debate using your framework argument to your advantage. Make sure to "close all the doors" in your last speech to prevent any affirmative spin on the arguments, and in this debate, I would do that by extending the counterplan. As a note, for many of the judges for this tournament, you do not need an independent voter for unwarranted arguments, judges just won't flow claims without warrants. I really like the organization of your speeches, just make sure you're speaking as clear as you can because sometimes it is difficult to understand what you're saying because the speeches are virtual. Great job, I was really impressed!|
The decision is for the Opposition: Zoha Askari
Reason for Decision:
I vote negative in this debate. I do not think that by the end of the debate the affirmative is advocating for the abolishment of the prison system, but is rather providing a different way for policing to happen. This is proven by the sentence in the last speech that says "shock collars would be the same as tasers which the police currently use" which leads me to be heavily persuaded by the negative's framework argument that the affirmative has not met the burden of "abolition" as set forth by the resolution, and provided a shift to "e-carceration." I also agree with the negative's argument that prison abuse is the fault of a system of policing, not multicultural prisoners, so I also am inclined to believe her Norway example.