Judge: Julie Carney (Wood River High School)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
 Giuseppe De Matties |
vs.
|
 Elizabeth Gellis |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/#a11417
Military News: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/20/pentagon-insists-live-animal-testing-saves-lives.html?comp=700001075741&rank=2
Novartis: http://www.novartis.com/innovation/responsibly-tackling-the-challenging-issues/animal-research/why-animal-research/limitations-of-alternative-testing-methods.shtml
TIME: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html
Posted at N/A by Giuseppe De Matties
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/military-training-animals-restricted-nonmedical_n_3087276.html#slide=1055709
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10731197309118562
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/humane_research.html
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Julie Carney
| Category | Giuseppe De Matties | Elizabeth Gellis |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 4.5 | 5 |
| Delivery skill: | 3 | 4 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 4 | 4.5 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 4.1 | 4.5 |
| Identification of key points: | 3 | 3 |
| Comments: | The proposition began well, defining his points, using data and defining the proposal of banning all animal testing. However , his speech at times was unclear and as the debate moved on his flow of points became less coherent. I appreciated that he broadened his use of resources in response to the oppositions point that PETA was not the most reliable resource. I would have liked more detail to the moral argument; I think that he got off track with the argument about humans and their connection with animal extinction. He did not elaborate which animals have been run into extinction due to animal testing. He did cite good points on testing methods that are useful in lieu of animal testing, however, did not answer to the question if saving human life is worth the loss of other animal life. | The opposition had many good resources for data and talking points. She stayed on target and systematically was able to counter each of the points delivered by the proposition. Her speech was a bit quick but not so much as to not be able to understand what she was saying. Her ability to come up with an alternative to the proposal that included the moral aspect was an interesting approach. |
The decision is for the Opposition: Elizabeth Gellis
Reason for Decision:
Both sides used strong research and factual data. The point that swayed me to choose the opposition was her ability to address the moral side of the argument while retaining her position on the need for some animal testing. It would have helped the propositions arguments had he had more data or support for how the moral issue impacts our society that was more directly related to the use of animals in testing. The connection between the atrocities brought onto Black and Jewish peoples, and the human influences that have contributed to the extinction of animals and global warming, where just a bit too far removed. Overall, both sides presented themselves well. The angle that the proposition took of only allowing testing on animals under certain and specific cases and with specific regulations won me over.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
