Judge: Lauren Cameron (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 Lauren Cameron
|Category||Sam Burns||Nick Julian|
|Use of evidence:||3.5||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.2|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||5|
|Identification of key points:||4||5|
|Comments:||More citations. Need reasons that ethics outweighs life, ie. why subjecting animals to a certain type of testing is wrong even if it can result in the death of others. See Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" for some evidence on this question.||Great refutation, good arguments just synthesize around a central point a little better. You do a good job of analyzing your original arguments in the context of the proposition and extend them well, keep it up.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Nick Julian
Reason for Decision:
The proposition does win that there is an unethical aspect to cruel non-human animal testing. However there is never a good response to the argument that the affirmative's burden is to win that all forms of animal testing are bad.
The opposition provides several examples of types of testing that doesn't infringe rights, and also makes some compelling arguments regarding the necesity of animal testing absent a viable alternative.
Neither side gives me very good impact analysis at the end of the debate, so I am left to presume that loss of life outweighs any small risk of an ethical violation, and thus at least some types of animal testing are allowable, meaning I vote for the opposition.
Great debate y'all!