Judge: Kancheng Wang (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Kancheng Wang
|Category||amelia poulin||Ashley Mason|
|Use of evidence:||4||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.2||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||4.7|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||The Proposition has very good arguments and eloquently delivered them. The flow of the arguments are easy to follow. She made a good case that if we alienate lives psychologically, we could harm the animals and even other humans without thinking morally. actually do to the animals during research to show how cruel it could be There could be more descriptive evidence of what scientists to appeal to people's emotions. The speed of the speech could ideally slow down a little bit for people to follow better.||The opposition did a good job of listing counter-arguments. It did a good job of saying "the benefit surpasses the cost". She also had a great argument that testing does not equal torturing and that animals could benefit too. These are excellent points to fight against proposition's arguments.
But it does have some misses in arguments and could have structured the evidence or examples a little better. I felt it could go harder on the fundamental subject to show that "animals are not human". We kill them sometimes because they don't behave the way that benefit us. The proposition obviously want us to emphasize for the animals and you can do the opposite delicately. As for what could've strengthened the arguments, there could be empirical examples of things that we created through animal testing or statistical evidence of how dependent we are on animal testing.
The decision is for the Proposition: amelia poulin
Reason for Decision:
Both did a great job of analyzing the subject. Thanks for both of your efforts.