Judge: Arturo Feliz (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)
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 09:56:56PM EST by Katherine Ma
Posted at June 2, 2020 11:46:04PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at June 3, 2020 10:21:21PM EST by Katherine Ma
Posted at June 4, 2020 08:18:48PM EST by Eesha Kodali
Posted at June 5, 2020 10:23:03PM EST by Katherine Ma
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 6, 2020 10:59:32AM EST by Arturo Feliz
|Category||Katherine Ma||Eesha Kodali|
|Use of evidence:||3||4.1|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.4||4.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||I think you set up a good framework for yourself and you make a good case.
I do think some responses were not strong enough to take down the opposition's arguments, such as your jobs and your food illness responses.
I think you make a good point of violence/assault but I think to win this round you needed to push more the fairness argument which you started but seemed to have dropped later.
|You do an amazing job at coming up with interesting arguments. I buy most (addiction, food, elderly, viability, etc.)
I also think you do a good job at bringing the case to your arena. You stayed away from the fairness argument and brought the proposition to respond your food, jobs and addiction arguments which you win.
The decision is for the Opposition: Eesha Kodali
Reason for Decision:
RFD Wow! thanks for a really good round. You both do a great job at making your cases.
In the end the round boils down to jobs, dangerous criminals, viability of abolition, food, elderly, deterrence, counseling and addiction, effectiveness, and violence within prisons.
I think that proposition wins the violence/assault arguments but opposition makes a compelling and very interesting case on jobs, dangerous criminals, viability of abolition, food, elderly, deterrence, counseling and addiction.
I don't necessarily think that more arguments win over fewer. But in this case I do think opposition makes a more compelling case, even when proposition makes a very good case as well.