Judge: Carlos Varela (University of Vermont)
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 Elizabeth Gellis
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacy: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323001200181X
Transparency Market Research: http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/in-vitro-toxicity-testing-market.html
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine: http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests
Biodefense and the U.S. Regulatory Structure: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/kennedy_institute_of_ethics_journal/v021/21.3.walker.html
Recent Developments in Stem Cell Research: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/indiana_journal_of_global_legal_studies/v017/17.2.skene.html
Animal Research: A Moral Science: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html
Posted at N/A by Crystal Hall
If you want any citations. just send me a message. I said most of the quals in the speech. Thanks for debating!
Posted at N/A by Elizabeth Gellis
Thanks to both my opponent and the judge for debating/watching the debate, respectively.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Carlos Varela
|Category||Elizabeth Gellis||Crystal Hall|
|Use of evidence:||2.2||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||2.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||4|
|Identification of key points:||3||3.5|
You did a decent job refuting a tough opponent, but your sort of win by default. You really need to develop better arguments against the use of speed in debate. The opposition clearly outdebates you in that clash of speed good or bad for debate. The opposition failed in the framework argument, which is why you win. But this round could have quite easily gone the other way.
|I am convinced that speed in debate can be good. I am convinced it can be beneficial for the debaters education. However, the use of speed alone will not win you the debate. The use of speed is a tool, to convince the judge of a position; it is not an argument alone. The execution of your spreading strategy failed on several levels. You handled this round as if it was a straight up LD or Policy debate, without making necessary adjustments to this format even going so far as calling the Proposition "aff" and the opposition "neg", and calling this format LD. I, as a judge, have to go with whatever the debaters give me, and I will not strike down a debater for the use of speed alone, but it was not used to convince me of the framework argument. Use speed as a strategy to garner an advantage, then use that advantage to sell the framework narrative. My suggestion would have been to use speed, then sell a story. By going a tad bit slower, and making your arguments clearer, you would've still had a clear advantage in terms of quantity of arguments. This would have been especially easy in a round where your opponent is not using speed. By slowing down, you can go faster. In the end, you spend to much time convincing me speed is good, and now enough time spelling out your narrative on how the proposition exacerbates the status quo by relying on fiat, blind advocacy of USFG and not individual advocacy. Your first opposition speech had a beautiful sentence, that I would have loved you to hone in on: "The proposition has to be able to prove that she will influence politics to win". That however was not done in the name of defending your style. Use speed, but improve your delivery. Some of those cards were just incomprehensible. Signposting, slight pauses in between arguments, at least slow down for the tags and main arguments. But, when your whole speech is aimed at getting in as many words and arguments as possible, it loses persuasive value, which is what cost you the round.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Elizabeth Gellis
Reason for Decision:
I am convinced animal testing requiring the use of animals is bad. The opposition's framework argument was not developed properly, and therefor lacked any reason for me to affirm the resolution.