Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (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 Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Molly Elgee||Jessica Tian|
|Use of evidence:||2.7||2.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||4.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.3||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||5.3||4|
|Comments:||Put citations in the cite box so we can look it up and check the quality of your evidence. Try to give more "eye contact" (ie look at the camera). Tape your notes right below or above the camera and it can be pretty easy to do this.
I like how you refocus the argument on morality but then still answer the CP. You should provide some offense on why the CP is bad versus just why it agrees with what you advocate. However, the focus back onto the need to fully ban is the heart of the debate.
|It would be nice to see some of the sources you're referring to in your speech, post it in the citation area. I like the CP idea and would like to hear more about it in regards to its effectiveness.
I don't get your levitation argument. I also think you need to either (a) come to grips with the focus on morality as being the primary focus of the debate as per the proposition; or ( create a counter-framework to explain why the focus on policy analysis is more important than a morality debate.
The decision is for the Proposition: Molly Elgee
Reason for Decision:
This was a very close and very good debate in my mind. The framework debate was interesting in how I should evaluate the round and I think both sides could have done a slightly better job impacting out why their approach (morality or policy) is the better approach. Ultimately, I vote for the proposition because I think the arguments about the expensiveness of animal testing, which will cause it to collapse upon itself, as well as the ineffectiveness of the testing makes it so even if animal testing were moral it's a bad policy. At the same time I think that opposition doesn't do a good enough job proving that testing is a moral option. While she does focus on how human lives might be saved (apart from the ineffectiveness question) she needs to do a better job at weighing utilitarianism versus deontology and showing why it is moral to use the ends to justify the means. Absent this I think the proposition wins that testing is immoral and probably a bad policy.
Again, very close, and very good. I'm excited to see how you two do going into the second week of debates and wish you the best of luck!