Judge: Dan Weiser (Unaffiliated)
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 Nick Julian
1) Russell & Birch, 1959 (The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, Chap. 4, retrieved from Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/chap4d, April 16, 2013)
2) Vicki Robinson, Dec 2005 (School Science Review, Dec 2005 87(319) "Speaking of Research"
3) CW Stratton, Nov 2006 (Medical Clinics of North America Journal, Nov 2006, retrieved from NIH.gov, April 2013)
4) Helen Marston, June 2011 (New Internationalist magazine, June 2011)
5) Hartung & Hoffman, March 2009 ("Food for Thought... on In Silico Methods in Toxicology", ALTEX Conference Proceedings, March 2009)
6) Pippin & Sullivan, April 2013 (http://pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests, retrieved April 17, 2013)
Posted at N/A by Nick Julian
1) US National Library of Medicine, British Journal of Pharmacology, Sept 2007. Retrieved May 5, 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978280/
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Dan Weiser
|Category||Nick Julian||Christian Chessman|
|Use of evidence:||5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5||5.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||5.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||5.5|
|Comments:||This was a really good debate! I think that you present yourself really well, speak really clear, and provide very competitive arguments. I thought the PIC was pretty damning initially, but your rebuttal was really impressive and i thought it would win you the debate. Unfortunately, in the end I felt that your last speech did not hold up to the same quality as the first two. You basically dropped the responses to the PIC and provided me with kind of an err on the prop side kind of argument with the "why not" theme. With PICS - you really need to spend the whole time talking about what makes the plan different from the PIC and why your plan is better, and that just didnt come through. You did an amazing job tho, i am very impressed, and wish you the best of luck!!||I think you did a really amazing job in this debate! After your constructive speech i was not sure how the prop was going to be able to come back and respond to the PIC. After he did a really good job responding and even generating some offense, you provided another stellar speech responding to every point, providing clear analysis with really strong arguments. Really nice debate. My only feedback would be that you speak really fast and move through a lot of arguments quickly. At times you did a nice job slowing down and focusing in on main points, but there are other times where your opponent had some really good points and you blow through them with one or two fast responses. I know you have a lot to say - but be careful not to overlook good arguments. Overall, you had a lot of really good arguments and made it an enjoyable debate. Best of luck!|
The decision is for the Opposition: Christian Chessman
Reason for Decision:
Ultimately i voted on the PIC. All of the speeches were REALLY good and very responsive to one another. During each speech i was convinced i was going to vote for whoever was speaking because you both made really good points. However - during the final closing speech i think the opposition had a lot of offense, and there was just not the same level of responsiveness from the prop. If were going with the why not theme, then why not just leave the door open for some animal testing if they understand what is going on and can consent to it? The opp generates a lot of offense from that point and i just dont have any real net benefit coming through as to what harm there would be leaving that possibility open. Nice job!!!