Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (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 02:57:40AM EST by Lucas Hinds
Mic - 01/27/15
Posted at June 2, 2020 02:55:41PM EST by Ian Chung
Posted at June 4, 2020 12:30:29PM EST by Ian Chung
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 7, 2020 09:41:01AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Lucas Hinds||Ian Chung|
|Use of evidence:||4.4||4.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.8||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.6||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||5.1|
|Comments:||I like how your propose an alternative to the prison system. I think your argument would be better served by providing a definition of what a "prison" is so you can prove that your alternative is not a prison. However, you seem to indicate that prisons would still exist in your opening speech, which isn't abolishing prisons. Your opening speech would be better if you provided more sources and evidence to back up your arguments. I also think you spend a little too much time providing a road map to your speech. I would also suggest creating bigger impacts as to why prisons are bad instead of taking it as an assumption.
Nice job responding to your opponent's arguments. Again, I wish you provided evidence for your arguments to back up your points. I don't think you can agree with your opponent's definition of "abolish" since your opening speech isn't advocating to get entirely rid of all prisons. Even in this speech you mention Sweden's system as a "prison system," which means you aren't defending an abolition of prisons as much as you're defending a reform of prisons. You need to do a better job at explaining why this is an affirmation of the resolution.
|Great job starting off by attacking the definition of the prison system according to the proposition team. Good job defining the term "proposition" and explaining why that isn't a defense of the resolution. I wish you impacted that out more. Ie why should I vote for you if you prove that the proposition doesn't defend the resolution. Good use of evidence for your speeches. I like how you craft an alternative to include some of the proposition's solution. I think you could do a better job a distinguishing between the two alternatives. Your sequencing argument is a good one but I think could probably be explained a bit better.
Make sure you use all your speech time. When you only have two speeches to your opponent's three you need to take advantage of your longer speech times. You could also do a better job at framing the debate and the ballot instead of just answering each individual arguments. Good job returning to your argument that abolition isn't the same thing as reforming or changing the prison system. I would suggest extending your evidence from your opening speech instead of just making your arguments again.
The decision is for the Opposition: Ian Chung
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opposition since I don't think the proposition doesn't defend the abolition of prisons. Even in the proposition's closing speech, he says we should change from a closed prison system to an open prison system. That is still a prison system, which means the proposition doesn't defend entirely getting rid of the prison system. The opposition needs to provide a different definition of the term "abolition" to prove that it affirms the topic, otherwise the opposition wins that the prop doesn't defend that we should entirely get rid of prisons, which results in an opposition ballot. Good job to both sides. This was a good debate. Congrats to you both for making it to semifinals!