Judge: Jacob Gartman (Unaffiliated)
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 Jacob Gartman
|Category||Ande Carbonel||Brittney Bleyle|
|Use of evidence:||3.5||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.5||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.8||3.8|
|Identification of key points:||3||4|
|Comments:||The affirmative could have won by: (1) better developing the moral calculus for not torturing/killing animals for medical testing even where it benefits people, (2) attacking the plausibility/strength of the affluence disad, and/or (3) attacking and comparing the scale of animal medical testing vs. the potential benefits (e.g. proving that in the world of the counterplan lots of animals will die with very little benefit for people).
In general, I think you could have strengthened your animals rights arguments by focusing less on how humans feel about nonhumans and less on the physical manifestations of nonhumans' unhappiness (e.g. their blood pressure) and more on what rights nonhumans deserve from an ethical point of view.
|The negative could have won more decisively by: (1) attacking the idea that non-animal testing can solve for cancer etc. and impact those diseases, (2) providing a moral calculus for why your disads are more important than the rights of nonhumans, and/or (3) better explaining/developing the affluence disad or some other net benefit (#3 is my least favorite option because the affluence disad was your weakest argument).|
The decision is for the Opposition: Brittney Bleyle
Reason for Decision:
Great job by both of you and thanks for letting me judge!
Ultimately I vote for the negative because of a very narrow risk of the affluence disad, which is a net benefit to the negative's counterproposal of banning animal testing except for medical purposes. I think that the affirmative does a better job explaining why the other net benefit (cancer) can be solved by new technology/methods that make animal testing obsolete. I also think that the affluence argument could be better developed and explained by the negative. However, the affirmative doesn't really contest the affluence argument or explain why the other benefits of the plan might outweigh it, so I feel compelled to vote for it, especially where the counterplan steals a bunch of the affirmative's advantages.
See the individual comments for each side to see where I thought you could have improved. Good job overall to both of you!