Judge: Julie Carney (Wood River High School)
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 Julie Carney
|Category||Vivek Chaudhary||Jacob Gelman|
|Use of evidence:||2.3||2.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.6||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||3.3||3|
|Comments:||I did not get a sense of the facts of what is happening in our society in regards to animal testing- how prevalent is it? What are the main methods? Needed to be a bit more clear on the living conditions the animals face, more evidence that animals other that humans actually feel pain. It seems you let the opposition take you off track by attacking your one opening phrase about "non -consenting animals". Again, more evidence as to the actual numbers of profit companies make on the animal testing, perhaps citing a company that does make profit that used to use animal testing and no longer does?||You were able to take the proposition off track by continually going back to a phrase he used in his original argument. Your ability to be firm and counter his points was a strong point for you. However, as with the proposition, there was a lack of actual data and facts. How much profit is made on the testing? How much would companies lose? Also, in terms of the kinds of diseases that can be researched, are there some that can only be researched using animals? You did not address his statement on how other countries would perceive us as a nation if we did away with animal testing, avoided the whole point of animal suffering.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Jacob Gelman
Reason for Decision:
I decided for the opposition due to his ability to deliver his statements so strongly and confidently. It was difficult at times to understand what the proposition was saying and it made him seem uncertain of himself. Neither had the amount or quality of data and facts that could have been used. The opposition successfully was able to avoid answering to some of the key points the proposition made just out of pure delivery and coherence in his arguments. I also noted that the opposition was thinking about his audience. However, again, I would suggest more research into social work, there are many in the field due to social works value of life and the value of self-determination who fiercely defend the rights of animals, both human and others. The proposition hinted at these ideas, and again, since the delivery was vague and was taken off track due to falling into defense mode after the oppositions first remarks, I felt more compelled by the oppositions arguments.