Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Garrett Masada (CSU-Fullerton) vs. Opposition: Alex Holguin (Liberty University)

Judge: Billy Sebelle (Binghamton University)

Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.

  • Garrett Masada
    Garrett Masada

    Alex Holguin
    Alex Holguin
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada



    Lankford, Ronnie D. 2009, Animal Experimentation, "Animal Experimentation Hampers Medical Research."

    Thompson, Tamara. 2012, The Ethics of Medical Testing, "Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary."

    9 April, 2013, Opposing Viewpoints in Context, "Cruel beauty."

    Feder, Barnaby J. September 2013, New York Times, "Saving the animals: new ways to test products."

    Posted at N/A by Alex Holguin



    1. Scientific Testing on Animals is key to Value to Life: Evidence given = Mermaids."

    2. "Animals will evolve, burn down forests and learn how to kill us all with Guns."

    3. "Animals are Jerks. This video proves."

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada



    Lankford, Ronnie D."Animal Experimentation Hampers Medical Research." Animal Experimentation. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009.

    Posted at N/A by Alex Holguin



    Didn't quite realize this was the last speech but I have this to add (I had 45 seconds): Mermaid turn was conceded. Impact turns are devastating.

    Thank you for putting up with whatever whimsical ideas fly across my tired brain.

    Posted at N/A by Garrett Masada



    US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement. 2010. Animal Testing and Science, 50 deadly consequences of lab animal experiments. Retrieved from:


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at N/A by Billy Sebelle

    Category Garrett Masada Alex Holguin
    Use of evidence: 4.3 0.5
    Delivery skill: 2.8 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 3.3 0.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 0.4
    Identification of key points: 3.6 0.8
    Comments: Garrett: you made good arguments with some good sources. My advice would be to work on your delivery and argument clarity. For instance - try to speak with some more passion in your voice when you discuss the atrocities that animals undergo as a result of testing.

    I felt you handled Alex's "arguments" well, and did made a good attempt to refocus the debate away from superfluous nonsense. The pet analogy was a good attempt to get me to sympathize, but I don't think it needed to be the theme of your speech. I think you can get very simple and say life matters, and all beings should be afforded some semblance of respect, and the use the pet analogy to strengthen your position.

    Spend less time in the end reading new evidence, and more time crystallizing your position. Work on making your reading voice sound more casual and conversational. Good job overall.
    ... Alex: This best sums up my response to your fist speech:

    I mean why? What was the point to your arguments. Satire? Cut the crap, that wasn't satirical... it was bull shit. I kept waiting for the point... Look, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say you were drunk or stoned or something, because no sober individual would be proud of the crap that you spewed for 8 minutes. I'm curious why you even participated in this event, you clearly didn't give two shits to conduct actual research. Maybe you thought this would be funny. Perhaps we don't share the same sense of humor. I was incredibly disappointed by your performance, especially after looking up your debate record. You should feel embarrassed, but something tells me you don't since you thought it was a good idea to post what you did.

    I don't know what to say. You are clearly a very talented Policy Debater and had a great year in debate, but you didn't seem to take this very seriously. Your turns... it almost feels like a stretch to call them that... would barely carry water in a policy debate, so cut the elitist BS and debate the points. Your arguments, while satirical, are nonsensical and not responsive.

    I don't even know how to evaluate your videos. The closest you came to making an actual argument was test on animals because they're dicks.

    I fail to see how your points are responsive or relevant other than the fact that you say the word animals.

    You provide zero impacts, and don't even get me started on that stupid TLC video (while hilarious... completely a waste of time).

    I appreciate that you were trying to make some convoluted satirical kritik, but you failed, epicly, at getting your point across. Your arguments seemed as well thought out as this

    The decision is for the Proposition: Garrett Masada

    Reason for Decision:

    Proposition wins that current testing should stop due to lack of scientific backing, waste of resources, and unwarranted violence to animals. Opposition made no arguments why animal testing is beneficial and provided zero evidence as basis for his position.

    If either of you would like to ask me questions, or discuss my comments feel free to email me at

    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by: