Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Zoha Askari (University Middle School) vs. Opposition: Ian Chung (Vestal Middle School)

Judge: Arturo Feliz (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)

Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.

  • Zoha Askari
    Zoha Askari

    Ian Chung
    Ian Chung
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at June 8, 2020 10:27:02PM EST by Zoha Askari



    Posted at June 9, 2020 12:17:55PM EST by Ian Chung



    Posted at June 10, 2020 09:30:26PM EST by Zoha Askari



    Posted at June 11, 2020 09:41:33AM EST by Ian Chung



    Good luck and congratulations on making it to finals!\,not%20accurate%20models%20for%20humans.

    Posted at June 12, 2020 10:32:12PM EST by Zoha Askari




    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at June 13, 2020 10:17:40AM EST by Arturo Feliz

    Category Zoha Askari Ian Chung
    Use of evidence: 5 4.7
    Delivery skill: 5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5
    Identification of key points: 5 5
    Comments: Zoha You are an impressive speaker. I always enjoy to hear young and amazing speakers as yourself. I can only imagine what you'll achieve later if you're this good now.

    I like your style. Sometimes a bit on the faster side for my taste but I was able to follow and flow pretty well.

    I think you chose a good fighting ground and defended it well. I especially enjoyed your defense to "top of the food chain", and your "95% evidence".
    Ian You're a amazing speaker. I love your pace, logical constructions, management of arguments, and generally respectful and composed style. You do it very well.

    I feel you're a PF debater. I think it's important that when debating other debate formats, especially on the con or opposition, that you build more offensive. I hear a lot of defense but the only possible offensive seems to be the status quo benefits, which may be non-unique if there's a viable option.

    I like that you concede what makes sense to concede. This makes you a very powerful debater. As a judge, I want to vote for debaters that sound reasonable.

    More in my RFD.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Zoha Askari

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD This was a VERY close one for me. Both debaters are amazing and I enjoyed this round very much. Possibly the best round I judged in this tournament.

    Proposition advances: Millions of lost lives, animal rights, sentiency, ineffectiveness, unreliability, alternatives, in vitro, mini-organs and multi-organ chips, human tissue, and "laziness in innovation".

    Opposition avances Stopping would stop progress and cause millions of deaths, humans have a right to do it due to being in the top of the "food chain", concedes cosmetics, animals don't have the same rights as humans, survival of the species, regulation already has standing laws to prevent, alternatives don't work. Opposition concedes ANY working option would give the round to the proposition.

    Proposition defends Food chain, meat as atopical, chips, 95%.

    Opposition closes Meat eating, chips don't work, regulation, 95%

    Proposition closes chips, technology and accuracy, technology progress v. animal testing stays the same.

    So. Here's what I buy and what I don't from the proposition. I buy deaths, pain and suffering, unreliability, and in vitro. I don't buy animal having the same rights as humans (not sure you ran that but opposition seems to believe you did) I don't buy laziness. Chips is a wash for me.

    Opposition. I do buy that a sudden stop would harm. I'm not sure this was discussed enough or extended to the end. This was probably one of your strongest arguments. I have trouble with the "top of the food chain argument". I get it scientifically, but it just comes across a bit insensitive in round. Prop has a good defense for this (abuse, domination, patriarchy, black and female bodies) I may not buy all of this but I do buy some of the defense which is enough to at least make this a wash. I will not buy the "meat eating" argument. Not only do I agree with proposition that it is not topical, I also feel it's a fallacy. I think accuracy is either a prop or at least a wash.

    In the end I feel like I have pretty much a wash in the utilitarian framework, with a slight advantage proposition, because of the nature of technology.

    On the deontological framework I think proposition clearly takes it. I see no moral answer to the pain and suffering and the "survival" and "top of the food chain" may work as utilitarian arguments, but not on the deontological frame.

    I end up going pro and wish you both the best! Amazing debaters!

    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by: