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 Dhruv Sehgal
Posted at N/A by Lindsey Hancock
Kazez, Jean. Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Carlos Varela
|Category||Dhruv Sehgal||Lindsey Hancock|
|Use of evidence:||3.4||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.8||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.8||4|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||3.1|
|Comments:||TWO ARGUMENTS THAT NEEDED TO BE STRONGER:
ALT SOLVENCY: Alternatives to animal testing needed to be extrapolated better to counter the oppositions claims of the disadvantages to this plan. ie Alternatives solve 100% more than animal testing.
ANIMAL TESTING IS NOT NECESSARY: This argument needed to be stronger to.
|Overall very good.
I don't consider the "tit for tat" argument to be an ad hominem, and could've avoided the whole feeling offended by it.
The decision is for the Opposition: Lindsey Hancock
Reason for Decision:
Great debate to both of you! Truly enjoyed this debate.
In the end of the round I am convinced that alternatives are not fully developed. Aff lacks solvency to these alternatives.
Counter advocacy of having institution review boards solves prop harms, by being able to solve medical harms in most ethical fashion, without the outlined harms found in the Prop world.