Judge: John Julian Sr (University of Washington Bothell)
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 John Julian Sr
|Category||Lauren Busdon||Jacob Gelman|
|Use of evidence:||1.7||1.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.5||2.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||1.1||1.3|
|Identification of key points:||2||1.3|
|Comments:||PRO Case Comments:
- I love the smile at the end of each speech. Very cute.
- The case is solidly constructed and thought out, for the most part.
- The claim that animals are killed in excess is not properly warranted. You show that large numbers of animals are killed, but is this "excessive"? I don't see where your evidence stretches that far.
- The second contention is by far your strongest, yet you de-emphasize it through much of the debate. Your opponent never challenges it. Silence being the embodiment of consent, you should have turned this into the focus of you final speech.
- The third contention is good, but you fail to show how this impacts the debate. Why does the military's animal cruelty justify a complete ban on all animal testing by the USFG? It certainly highlights a place we could improve, but again, the evidence doesn't stretch far enough to indict all testing.
PRO Refutation Comments:
- Again, the second contention needed to be more strongly emphasized during rebuttal. You do say that alternatives exist, and that your opponent hasn't said they're not. But so what? Tell me how this wins you the debate. Make my life easy. Making it easy to vote for you is the key to winning debates.
- You do a decent job of calling out each argument you're refuting. but I'm not sure going out of order buys you anything. Stay in the order the ideas were presented - it makes it easier for me to follow.
- Near fatal error committed: You give your opponent the fact that humans and animals aren't equal. This renders your entire numeric and moral analysis in your first contention moot.
- Work on making sure you spend some of each rebuttal showing why your original case still stands. Otherwise, what's the point of your first speech? Use that work you did in the first few minutes of the round to leverage a win later.
|OPP Case Comments:
- When you came out with a USFG agency tag, I was expecting either a theory block on how she didn't offer a plan text or specify agency specific solutions. I was quite disappointed in the direction you took this and felt you could have done a lot more here.
- The case lacks warrants all over the place. Lots of claims (status quo emphasizes human life, medical and scientific progress is being made because of animal testing (this was at best a logical correlation, which could suffer from a "correlation without causation" fallacy. But your opponent never explores this).
- You handle the human = animal moral equation very well in the Constructive. It's crushed. BUT, you drop her Contention about how animal testing could be replaced by technology. So.... why does it matter whether or not animals and humans are equal? What the impact of your refutation?
- Would have liked to hear more about the dehumanization of the Aff case. This started as a winner and had my attention early.
- The last 2 points - that testing on humans would be also testing on animals and that US imposed regulation on foreign countries would be harmful are tenuous and poorly constructed. No warrants given for the claims. The narrative is interesting. But a kritik of this nature needs more proof. There wasn't enough reason for me to buy this.
OPP Rebuttal Comments:
- 3:00 out of 4:00 spent on resolutional wording? Gag. I'd rather have had my fingernails pulled off slowly than listen to a definitions battle.
- Nuclear war? The US banning all testing would be an act of war? This was all a stretch. And without any evidence or analytical support this was akin to trying to jump Niagara Falls on a mountain bike. And how does ANY of this relate to the advocacy of banning testing requiring the use of animals? The US can't pass any regs that would restrict foreign nations actions? C'mon. We pass domestic laws all the time designed to coerce countries into behaving a certain way. To wit: Toys can't be painted with lead paint. China makes toys with lead paint. And we haven't gone to nuclear blows with them yet? But they did remove toys with lead paint from their export lists. I'd need a lot more evidence to reach this conclusion.
- That something has a species does not make it an animal. plants, virii, even rocks have a hierarchical species designation. It's just a classification.
The decision is for the Proposition: Lauren Busdon
Reason for Decision:
I have to take all the discussion and boil it down since neither debater does a very good job of crystallizing the debate for me. They're both all over the map. So lets see where that map goes:
1) Are humans morally equivalent to animals? PRO raises this when she says that testing animals is immoral because we kill more animals than we have humans who die from disease. She tries to add that animals feel pain and therefore are equivalent to humans. OPP correctly and properly analyzes her implications, and responds that humans and animals are not equal with solid reasoning. OPP proves that humans are rational being deserving of higher value. In the PRO rebuttal, she concedes this. Thus we must set aside the moral objection to animal testing raised by PRO as the sole justification for halting testing.
2) PRO then raises that alternatives exist that could replace animal testing. This argument is never addressed satisfactorily or substantively by the OPP. PRO extends that testing is expensive and that alternatives would save money. This is also dropped by the OPP. Thus PRO gives a valid reason for the replacement of animal testing on a pragmatic scale.
3) Is there anything in the OPP argumentation to outweigh the impact of replacing animal testing with alternatives at this time? The OPP tries to say that testing on animals would include testing on humans and that "testing" (which neither side defines, despite their penchant for definitional debate) would be eliminated and lots of bad impacts would follow. But the link is never established here. In fact, the analysis that humans are animals flies in the face of his refutation of the fact that PRO's Contention 1 tries to equate animals and humans. The OPP is double bound here. OPP then tries to say we need animal testing, but cites no warrant or evidence that would lead to that conclusion.
Ultimately, because the PRO establishes that alternatives are sufficient and the OPP gives not proof that it isn't and no analysis that outweighs impacts, I am forced to vote PRO.
Good luck to both of you. Thank you for the debate.
BTW - for future reference, please use the citation section to list your sources. I need to be able to see where your evidence is taken from since I can't ask for it in round. It didn't factor into this debate, but it might in others.