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.
Posted at N/A by amelia poulin
. Wolfe 03 (Cary, professor of Philosophy at SUNY Albany. From page 7-8 of Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Speciesism, and Postmodernist theory.)
Francione 08 (Gary Francione, Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas DeBussey Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at the University of Rutgers. Animals as persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation by Gary Francione. P. 155-156. ISBN: 978-0-231-13950-2)// RJG
Posted at N/A by Monique Saastamoinen
Frankie L. Trull is president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, the nation's oldest and largest organization dedicated to improving human and animal health by promoting public understanding and support for the humane and responsible use of animals in medical and scientific research
Haugen,David M., ed. Animal Experimentation At Issue Series. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.
Posted at N/A by Monique Saastamoinen
Phases of vaccine trial:
Benefits to animals through animals testing: http://www.noah.co.uk/issues/briefingdoc/04-exper.htm
The history and stages of vaccine trials: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation
Dangers of human trials:
Annimal testing CANNOT be replaced at this time: http://www.aalas.org/association/animal_research_faqs.aspx
Devastation of human testing:
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Will Scott
|Category||amelia poulin||Monique Saastamoinen|
|Use of evidence:||3.6||4.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.9||3.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.5||3.1|
|Identification of key points:||5.5||4.4|
|Comments:||I think you should spend more time focusing in on explaining the oppression of the other. You make a lot of assertions that aren't backed up with evidence. The evidence exists, but you should make this debate about how even one instance of animal testing leads to all forms of oppression. The time you spend on the arguments about the pain of testing and efficiency are unnecessary if you access all oppression through any form of testing. You seem to get distracted by trying to throw more arguments into the debate than you need to.
You make the right strategy choice in the 2nd speech by going for the binary/root cause of oppression argument. Good overview, lays out why the opposition allowing any testing allows for an anthropocentric mindset to continue, making all forms of oppression possible. Good explanation of how, even if the opposition is right that animal testing saves both human and nonhuman lives, it allows for more death through racism, sexism, colonialism, etc.
You do a good job of pointing out the flaws in the opposition rebuttal and the ethical speciesism.
|I don't understand why there being other bad things happening to nonhuman animals (e.g. slaughterhouses) means that we should not ban testing. You start with an order that is case, K, CP, but you only read case and a hasty CP without evidence in the last 15 seconds.
You are behind going into this speech because you don't talk about how oppression of the nonhuman leads to other forms of oppression earlier in the debate. While you say you would ban testing in all possible areas, you still allow for testing, which shows that you view "possible areas" as those that don't help the human or can be replaced and still maintain benefits to humans. You argue that I should reject her personal experience as hearsay (thus using a legal objection to her claims about tests she has been a part of). You ask me to imagine a world with a drug trial gone wrong on humans as a tool to reject her testing on willing humans argument, but for me to find that persuasive would require me to value humans over animals because when tests go badly in the animal testing phase they are ignored and the drug is determined to be flawed. Why don't we have this pandemonium when 400 nonhumans die in a test, unless we have an anthropocentric mindset?
The decision is for the Proposition: amelia poulin
Reason for Decision:
Specieist mindset leads to domination by humans in multiple forms of oppression, the negative shows a specieist mindset throughout the debate. The proposition is exactly right to point out that the examples the opposition brings out in the rebuttal assume a humanist position.
The proposition is doing a much better job of assuming a world where "even if" the opposition is winning an argument and explaining how the proposition impacts outweigh the opposition impacts. The classism debate comes really late in the debate and sandbags the proposition's closing, which prevents a root cause debate between speciesism and classism, so I default to speciesism on presumption and to protect the aff from sandbagging.