Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Jessica Nagulendran (Anglo-Chinese Junior College) vs. Opposition: Sam Burns (Wood River High School)

Judge: Jenn Geiss (Binghamton University)

Resolution: RESOLVED: The United Nations should adopt a resolution decrying or demanding an end to the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan.

  • Jessica Nagulendran
    Jessica Nagulendran
    vs.



    Sam Burns
    Sam Burns
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2014 01:28:42AM EST by Jessica Nagulendran

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2014 10:07:57PM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2014 02:17:53AM EST by Jessica Nagulendran

    Citations

    Show

    United Nations. ECOLEX: Treaties: record details. http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=AB10B6441399C07021A3611F7DA6B2F5?id=TRE-000074&index=treaties

    Posted at April 25, 2014 01:10:09AM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.salon.com/2014/04/17/japanese_lawmakers_protest_whaling_ban_with_a_whale_buffet/

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/4/harvard-archair-activism/

    http://www.theinertia.com/environment/taijis-dolphin-slaughter-whos-really-to-blame/

    Posted at April 26, 2014 01:53:58AM EST by Jessica Nagulendran

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 10:39:47PM EST by Jenn Geiss

    Category Jessica Nagulendran Sam Burns
    Use of evidence: 1.9 3
    Delivery skill: 2.6 3.4
    Coherence of arguments: 2.7 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 4
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: You mention Dolphin meat is a luxury in the first 20 mins of your 1AC yet:
    According to local wholesaler Mizutani Ikuo, dolphin meat sells for about 2,000 yen (about US$16) a kilo, cheaper than beef or whale.(http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/2306)

    And you mention that lives would not be lost but what about making an argument that lives are 'harmed' because dolphin is full of mercury and toxins?
    The UN Court of Justice evidence should have been cited in your constructive.

    Why would the UN acting make it worse? If you are suggesting that it would antagonize the Japanese, make that argument a little clearer.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Sam Burns

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition did not present the argument of 'why not stop other animal abuses' as a counter plan, yet the proposition then tries to perm this in the last argument saying 'to make resolution against all animal abuses'...but that is not the resolution...not the plan.


    2 Comments

    Proposition (Jessica Nagulendran)

    Evidence 2
    Delivery 3.5
    Coherence 3.2
    Responsiveness 3
    Key points 2.3

    Your opening speech is well structured and you clearly presented harms. However, the arguments were very limited to the empowerment of the UN. It would have been better if you had more diversity in your argument. For example, you could have expanded your argument of animal rights.

    Your argument that dolphin meats are luxuries and all animal deserve respects and protection was not very good arguments. You should have mentioned why we should save dolphins first, rather than other animals.

    Furthermore, you need to focus more on WHY your harm is more important than the opposition, rather than keep pointing out that the opposition didn't respond to your arguments. Also, you could have spoken with more energy in the rebuttal speech.

    Opposition (Sam Burns)

    Evidence 2.8
    Delivery 4.3
    Coherence 4.4
    Responsiveness 3.8
    Key points 3.5

    You clearly delivered that the UN's decision is not very democratic and other animal massacre should be taken care of before dolphins. Your example of dog meat convention in South Korea was very convincing.

    However, you were not able to address why the UN should not intervene. Furthermore, you could have strengthen your argument by providing examples. For instance, 450 million chickens are slaughtered for food in the U.S. each year, but only 2,000 dolphins in Taiji, Japan. So that the judge or audience can be more convinced.

    My decision is for the opposition (Sam Burns) because the proposition basically refuted herself by saying all animals deserve protection. - Ian Kim on May 1, 2014 at 01:44AM EST
    Thanks for judging Jenn and thanks for a great round Jessica! - Sam Burns on April 28, 2014 at 10:37AM EST

    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

    PHP MySQL SUIT