Judge: Amanda Jaret (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
David Diaso Jr.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at N/A by Christian Chessman
all cites available at request to firstname.lastname@example.org
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Amanda Jaret
|Category||Christian Chessman||David Diaso Jr.|
|Use of evidence:||3||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||2.5|
|Identification of key points:||5||4.1|
|Comments:||-Loved your opening speech and was so psyched to hear how this debate was going to go down until all the technical errors.
-Thought your delivery was very effective
-Good responses and well-impacted theory arguments
-Would have preferred to hear some substantive arguments instead of just theoretical and rules-based objections
-Thought you impacted your arguments about rules violations well
The decision is for the Proposition: Christian Chessman
Reason for Decision:
As my video suggests, I end up voting for the proposition in this round for several reasons.
First, while I appreciate the education and rules-based arguments David is making, I do not think this is a malicious rules violation, and I think Christian demonstrated reliance on the approval of the tournament director and offered several alternatives (messaging him, looking up his opening speech on YouTube, etc.) that could have been pursued during the normal time limits that might have averted this whole problem. While I appreciate that this caused trouble, I just do not think the "punitive approach" is the correct response to what happened in this round.
Second, I think Christian is winning the education arguments because of his proposal to continue the debate after ceding one of his speeches. This should have been the equalizing force that allowed some substantive debate to occur. It seems that this compromises your education claims a bit, David, since at least we could have talked about animals for a lil while that way.
Finally, I think Christian is ahead on the fairness portions of the debate. It seems to me that this was an honest mistake and that David could have tried to engage substantively in a few different ways and did not or was not able to do so. While this is a shame and I wish the debate had gone differently, I think this is the most equitable way of resolving matters.
I wish you both the very best and hope you stick with debate (and animals)!
Video from the judge: