Pros And Cons Of Desalination

1. Debate: Desalination Plants Should Be Banned

During the debate that desalination plants should be banned Julia brought up a large number of points. Some of which helped he case and others, which seemed to broad to be true. For example, Julia claimed that the use of the plants will through off the salinity levels in the water, this point was very hard to believe based on the size of the ocean. She also claimed that the plants kill millions on sea animals just merely in the intake tube alone. Why this is hard for me to believe is because I’m sure there is some sort of screen on the end of these tubes to filter out a large number of by products in the ocean. One of Julia’s good points was that the cost to produce a gallon of water exceeded
the benefits and that there should be other means of finding drinking water. In the case of Ray who was refuting the claim that desalination plants should be banned showed greater evidence that the plants should stay in production. His point where the excess salt can be sold to be used in other products as well as alternate means of electricity to help drive down energy cost. Both parties did rebuttal to each other’s topics; however, I do believe that Ray was more focused on attacking his opponent more than allowing for his evidence to do the talking. Also Ray’s delivery was too quick, he didn’t allow for his main points to soak in with the audience before he started on his next point. In conclusion, I do believe that the winner of the debate was Ray because he seemed more prepared than Julia, Also his rebuttal was wore thought out and more direct based on the information he gathered.

2. Debate: Fast Food Restaurants Should be Banned Because it Makes People Fat
This debate was between Diana (Policy) and Cheron (Refutation). Diana did start off strong with this debate; however, I do believe that she points on the fact that merely just eating fast food will make you fat. She didn’t present any cold hard facts to back up her claim, nor did she state that there has never been a case against a restaurant and a patron that was proven in court. Where the patron was filing suit against the companies food for making them fat and won. The general outline for her speech was hard to keep track of, she often bounced around from point to point. During Cheron’s refutation, I do believe she had some valid arguments against Diana but don’t believe it was the right route to take. Cheron claimed that the lack of grocery stored in minority communities was the cause of obesity. I could see where she was trying to go with this point but if that were the case then white people wouldn’t be fat but many are. The approach I was hoping to see was that of not eating patterns but that of exercise patters in the United States as a whole. During the rebuttal it was hard to determine if Diana was addressing the facts that Cheron had presented of if she was just restating them and not providing a rebuttal. In all both parties did present their deliveries in a professional matter and if I had to choose a winner it would have to be Cheron.

3. Debate: Yulin, China’s Dog Meat-Eating Festival Should be Banned
The debate was between Lorena (Policy) and Benny (Refutation).
The debate was about the inhuman treatment of animals during the festival as well as, the kidnapping of animals from all around China just for the festival. Lorena started off but focusing on how the animals were inhumanely killed, beaten, burned alive, boiled alive and skinned alive. She also pointed out the many of the animals were claimed to be peoples pets who were taken from them illegally just to fund the Yulin festival. She also mentioned that the festival was a tradition however, she proved that wrong by presenting information about how the local meat and dog trailers used the festival to increase revenue. During the refutation Benny had some amazing counter arguments stating that it was part of China’s heritage. Also he went on to provide information from China that the festival was soon to be banned, and a stop to the public killing of animals were to be illegal in public. As well as, China was placing strict food safety laws on the selling of dog meat, to help limit the number of diseases spreading between humans and dogs. Lorena rebutted this with the points that dog meat traders should be punished. Benny rebutted this by saying plans were already in place and the festival was greatly declining. On Terms of delivery Lorena pre-though out her entire speech and it didn’t reflect the points Benny was presenting. If I had to choose a winner for this debate it would be
Benny.

4. Debate: The Removal of the 5150 Law
This debate was between Vincent (Policy) and Sandra (Refutation). The debate was on the topic of the 5051 law; this law places a person in custody that is harmful to themselves or those around him. The person is detained and is held for three days under mental care. Vincent the policyholder believes that this Law is unlawful and a person should have the right to kill him or herself if they decide to. Vincent’s case on the subject was a weak one; he pulled more of his self experiences into the debate rather than presenting facts. However, he did seem very emotional about the topic, which gave him the one up over Sandra. Sandra’s refutation was ideal; She presented facts laws and information about persons who have been detained on the 5150 Law. She also presented reasons why the law is in the best interest of the individual and the public. During Vincent’s rebuttal he did agree with Sandra’s points and touched on some minor thing but overall it didn’t leave much for Sandra to rebuttal against. Both parties presented their information well; however I do believe Sandra’s case was strong and took the win in my book.