Judge: sarah bailey (Unaffiliated)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
![]() Brandon Evans |
vs.
|
![]() Gus Kimball |
Click to begin |
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animal+testing
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/2009_Animals_Used_In_Research.pdf
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/awvar/lecture/singer_arguments.html
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/holocaust.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019976/Why-8-million-animals-face-death-test-toothpaste-washing-liquid.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4817178.stm
Posted at N/A by Gus Kimball
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2013/01/the-obama-administrations-first-term-animal-protection-record.html
Environmental Values 16 (2007): 169185 2007 The White Horse Press
Dictionary.com
http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0903poste0903.html
Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx
Posted at N/A by Brandon Evans
http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Tournaments/2/Invite/binghamton-university-s-1st-annual-online-debate-tournament/
http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq07.shtml
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by sarah bailey
Category | Brandon Evans | Gus Kimball |
---|---|---|
Use of evidence: | 5 | 4.5 |
Delivery skill: | 4.5 | 5 |
Coherence of arguments: | 4.7 | 4.5 |
Responsiveness to opponent: | 4.9 | 4.8 |
Identification of key points: | 5 | 4.5 |
Comments: | I very much liked how the Prop addressed the res and formed the whole framework around the ethical argument ![]() |
I found the Opp attempts to undercut the ethics argument (framework) with USFG as the actor very compelling and the Singer indictment of evidence...interesting. Though defining utilitarians as coming to a numbers game a bit tricky. I did find the Opp argument that tests are still needed (as the Prop does not defend all tests are irrelevant) but does not address the tests PETA has been advocating for. |
The decision is for the Proposition: Brandon Evans
Reason for Decision:
For me, as both sides addressed a framework, I felt I had to start (and stop) there, as the arguments have to fall under one of them. Not due to the res (and the definition of the word "all" as the Prop does defend "all"). As there were no voters (thank god!) on the extra time and extra new arguments , I gave NO weight to those, as with the Prop being 'extra-topical".
With all that being said: Framework- The Prop operates under the framework of getting rid of ALL animals tests, we have an ethical (and moral) obligation to stop, especially since PETA has tests that solve for the status quo if they were more utilized (as Prop points out numerous times and Opp drops this). Where the Opp wants to have the USFG as the actor as defined in the res-and the USFG would NOT eliminate all tests so the Prop framework should not be considered. The issue I have with the Opp is that we are (as a culture, society ect) moving towards a more ethical perspectives, companies are adopting more ethical practices and ingredients. With that said, I find the Prop to be more in line with what the USFG is moving towards (takes out the Opp framework or the Prop SHOULD have permed)and there is no given reason why (besides the USFG wouldn't' do it)the Prop ethical framework would not work.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.