Judge: Cory Ackerman (Rutgers 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.
Posted at N/A by Jonathan Speidel
Christopher Anderegg - Medical Research Modernization Committee
Vitro testing - Crown Marketing Pharmaceuticals
Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-kangas/taxpayersupported-animal-_b_3036758.html
John Gluck - psychology professor at the University of Mexico
Jane Goodal - British primatologist
Posted at N/A by Jonathan Speidel
The guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/animal-testing-safer-methods
Posted at N/A by amelia poulin
Knight , Andrew. "Animal testing isn't just an ethical problem let's invest in safer methods." The Guardian. N.p., 12 Jul 2012. Web. 20 Apr 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/animal-testing-safer-methods>.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Cory Ackerman
|Category||Jonathan Speidel||amelia poulin|
|Use of evidence:||5||5.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.5||5.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||5.5|
|Identification of key points:||5.5||5.5|
|Comments:||I think that you seriously need to address her argument that you don't define the what the "use of animals" for animal testing is. By ignoring that point you let the opposition control the debate, and I find the opposition's argument that you would ban even the use of stem cell testing persuasive. That being said, that doesn't end the debate for you because the opposition doesn't go all in on the point, so I'm willing to grant you wide latitude there, but it hurts your position that in-vitro and stem cell testing works because there is a chance those things won't be done with the the proposition you put forward.
You also need to respond more effectively to the oppositions argument that testing on animals for animals is less, cruel, works, and that you will end that as well. The oppositions use of your own evidence against you damning, and your response is weak at best. A veterinarian says this, but does that person think that alternatives won't work? Are they not assured by alternatives? You don't raise these issues, and they hurt your position.
You also don't address the opposition's argument that cost is irrelevant when considering ethical issues. Beyond that problem, you also don't contextualize the cost. You throw out numbers with telling me what they mean. We spend X on animal testing, but Y on alternatives, injecting X money into Y would increase Y by Z, and the alternatives are already producing results with JUST Y! You have speech time left over in every speech after the first constructive to provide that analysis. Worst of all you don't tell me why that waste is bad beyond just asserting it.
Finally, you need to be hammering home that the alternatives work to replace testing on animals for animals. Ultimately this is the place where I vote opposition. The opposition's argument that testing on animals for animals is a long-term net positive is a winning argument in a utilitarian framework, which again, is an argument you don't really address.
Stylistically I think your final speech needed a summary at the top highlighting the important issues and what the round comes down to, you just jump right into refutation, and with 20s left over it was plenty of time to do just that.
|You need to answer the Proposition's arguments more effectively that alternatives can replace testing on animals for animals. Simple making a logical deduction would not be enough in a round where you're going all in on this argument. You need some evidence introduced earlier in the round that animal testing is 1/ less intrusive and 2/ does not create incentives to put animals down.
You do a good job bringing up the proposition's sloppy definitions, but you should hammer on that more. A liberal reading of the proposition would ban stem cells and in-vitro testing because that is the "use of animals." And then you lead into your argument about animal for animal testing.
Overall you made good and strategic use of concessions in this round in order to win the ballot, I just think that your final speech could have been more focused on the winning issues. Highlighting, expanding and using those positions to answer back would have made this a much cleaner opposition ballot.
The decision is for the Opposition: amelia poulin
Reason for Decision:
Animal for animal testing would be banned by the Proposition, and that's a net negative in a world where that ensures the use of effective drugs for animals and animal for animal testing is not as harmful as animal for human testing. While animal for human testing is reprehensible, I think it would be a net negative to ban all animal testing, and the proposition does not make clear that the alternatives proposed would or could work to replace animal for animal testing.