Judge: Will Scott (James Madison 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.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Will Scott
|Category||Greg Ginder||Jessica Tian|
|Use of evidence:||1.5||1.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.9||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||2||5|
|Identification of key points:||3.7||5|
|Comments:||-Use all of your speech time.
-Be more responsive to opposition arguments. Focus on applying your arguments where they respond to your opposition.
-If you're gonna indict your opponent for not using much evidence, be sure to use evidence yourself and to cite your evidence.
|-Use more evidence early, but maintain your warranted analysis.
-Good job of focusing on where you're winning the debate and using your time to effectively defend your position.
-Well executed strategy in the rebuttals.
The decision is for the Opposition: Jessica Tian
Reason for Decision:
Neither side puts any cites in the area for citations, which hurts the ability of both sides to interrogate the other's claims. I did not find the opposition rebuttal to be hard to follow or that it couldn't be followed by most persons, so I don't give the proposition any leeway on dropping arguments. I vote on the opposition counterplan to reform animal testing. The only response the counterplan is that it is flawed because animal testing is not torture. However, the proposition doesn't respond to the opposition response that torture under the counterplan is defined differently, and I buy that argument, which means the counterplan solves animal suffering while allowing for some limited, nonpainful testing. There's much better warranted analysis by the opposition on why the counterplan solves case while maintaining a net benefit of limited testing.