Judge: Catherine Marin (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 05:33:21AM EST by Amanda Gonzalez
Posted at June 2, 2020 04:13:45PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at June 4, 2020 05:42:49AM EST by Amanda Gonzalez
Posted at June 4, 2020 11:16:44PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at June 6, 2020 03:51:28AM EST by Amanda Gonzalez
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 6, 2020 11:15:22PM EST by Catherine Marin
|Category||Amanda Gonzalez||Imogen Kurtz|
|Use of evidence:||5.5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||5|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||You are a very strong debater, and this round was very close. Ultimately, I think a few changes to the 1ar strategy would have made your 2ar much easier, and won you the round. Congratulations on semi finals! A few notes-
There are no counterplans on the aff, you're reading a plan. This plan is to abolish the prison system and replace it with one that is like norways. I think this is a very good plan, but you need a justification for and definition of abolishment. You get a little behind in the 1ar trying to defend and extend all of your points, and while you make a lot of very good points in the 2ar a lot of them are pretty new. I think the 1ar needs to go for the minorities subpoint and explain that systemic racism will not be solved through reform, because it is ingrained in the idea and definition of the prison system. You also need a robust defense of why reforms are not feasible (have been tried before, racist system so no one wants reforms, etc). You then need an extensive and specific extension of why Norway's system is better, how it would work, and how that solves the neg impacts (basically a perm). I also think you should have argued that your opponent is basically arguing for abolition and calling it reform, since she isn't keeping any of the parts of the prison system except the name. I think all of these ideas are there, but you spread yourself a little too thin trying to get to every point which ultimately hurts your ability to cover them in depth.
|Congratulations on semi finals! A few notes-
I was not a huge fan of the 1nc strat. I think you should have cut the number of points in half and spent more time on how each of them could have been achieved. If your opponent had spent more time calling out that those things have been tried and have been unsuccessful, you wouldn't have enough on the flow to explain your solvency in the nr. That in mind, I think your execution was excellent, and you are absolutely calling out the right things with the aff case (timeframe, how will the aff work, what will the aff do exactly).
The decision is for the Opposition: Imogen Kurtz
Reason for Decision:
Both debaters were exceptionally skilled, and I was very impressed with both the quality of argument and delivery.
The aff and the neg are functionally arguing for exactly the same thing. Both sides want to change the prison system so drastically it is fundamentally being abolished. However, neither debater treats those arguments in that way. If one of the two of you had called that out, and explained how your strategy was different and how you solved better it would have been an auto win. I ended up voting on the neg argument that the aff doesn't have super specific or well articulated solvency. In voting neg, I know exactly what I am voting for.