Judge: Thomas Hyatt (Bellevue College)
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 Thomas Hyatt
|Category||Mckensie Stoltzfus||Nelson Cantrell|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.4||5.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||5.9|
|Identification of key points:||5.5||5.6|
|Comments:||Structure! Where is the structure! Even if you use a narrative paradigm, you need to elucidate it through your delivery...in your rebuttal, you get at the heart of evidentiary comparison , which is great...good analysis of impacts of animal testing harms vs benefits.||You should roadmap your constructive. Also, neg argument construction is awkward with no impact structure. Good attempt at case clash after neg off case. Good grasp of structure and argument clash in rebuttal. Really good comparison of arguments strengths. You should go beyond cancer analysis for why testing is necessary. Great wrap up in your rebuttal and rfd...you have promise|
The decision is for the Opposition: Nelson Cantrell
Reason for Decision:
This round is a toss up. The aff presents a good case for why animal testing should be stopped. Neg presents good case and focuses on cancer and expands on that impact. Although I am extremely receptive to affs arguments, I am persuaded by neg arguments and defense of evidence in relation to cancer...what I would have liked from both sides is for you to weigh the arguments for me in the last rebuttals...both sides have great promise...I vote neg...