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: Steven Dikowitz (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Tempei Seki (Shorin Global)

Judge: Dimitri Liv (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Steven Dikowitz
    Steven Dikowitz
    vs.



    Tempei Seki
    Tempei Seki
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 08:49:21PM EST by Steven Dikowitz

    Citations

    Show

    NOTE: Sorry for the double video, I downloaded webcam software just for the tournament so it's my first time using it. Next video will only be one of me, I promise.


    1. "Anthropocentrism IS how men and women justify systemic genocide, suffering, and oppression of entire species of animals"

    Rozin, Paul, et al. "Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships." Journal of Consumer Research (2012). <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664970>.

    2. "all 20 billion of our animal brothers and sisters that are killed each year"

    Statistics taken from http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-billion-farm-animals-killed-in-2010.html

    3. Human privilege is indelibly connected to violence and misogyny

    Zaikowski, Carolyn. "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle The Masters Rape Rack: Feminism and Animal Rights." May 16, 2012. http://liferoar.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-masters-tools-will-never-dismantle-the-masters-rape-rack-feminism-and-animal-rights/

    4. When we suffer we suffer as equals, and in our capacity to suffer..."
    Wollen, Philip. "Ethics in a Meat-Free World." 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApeIUzKLkuo

    5. "As Professor John Sorenson found in Constructing Extremists, Rejecting Compassion...."

    Sorenson, John. Constructing Extremists, Rejecting Compassion Critical Theory and Animal Liberation P224

    6. "The treatment of dolphins in drive hunts sharply contradict current animal welfare standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies"

    A Veterinary and Behavioral Analysis of Dolphin Killing Methods Currently Used in the Drive Hunt in Taiji, Japan
    Andrew Butterworth, Philippa Brakes, Courtney S. Vail, Diana Reiss
    Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
    Vol. 16, Iss. 2, 2013


    7. The only appropriate moral response to a history of human destructive action is to give up our claims to biological supremacy

    Kochi, Tarik & Ordan, Noam. "An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity." Borderlands.Vol 7, Issue 3, 2008. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf


    8. "The world is still a plantation"

    Quote I borrowed from Frank B. Wilderson, III. Irvine RR Conference - Discussion with Frank B. Wilderson III. March 9, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxMfL35rQsA

    Posted at April 22, 2014 06:10:46AM EST by Tempei Seki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2014 08:30:06PM EST by Steven Dikowitz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2014 05:52:50AM EST by Tempei Seki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 07:29:03PM EST by Steven Dikowitz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2014 11:58:32PM EST by Dimitri Liv

    Category Steven Dikowitz Tempei Seki
    Use of evidence: 5 4.8
    Delivery skill: 5.5 4.7
    Coherence of arguments: 5.6 4.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.8 4
    Identification of key points: 5.5 4.5
    Comments: Good job extending all your arguments, delivery was really good. Good job! Next time you are the negative try to give a solid reason why the judge should vote for you. Really try to show the aff plan is a bad idea, or have a good counterplan, etc.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Steven Dikowitz

    Reason for Decision:

    Aff extended all his main arguments which were either dropped or insufficiently answered throughout the debate. At the end of the debate I saw no reason I can vote neg, since the world of the aff appears to atleast have a chance to stop this instance of speciesism, which he said can lead to violence, patriarchy, eugenics, etc. whether this is true or not is probably debatable, but in the world where the neg doesn't answer these arguments, I have to vote to stop these terrible things from happening.


    1 Comment

    Proposition
    Evidence: 5
    Delivery: 5.8
    Coherence: 5
    Responsiveness: 5.5
    Key points: 5

    Opposition
    Evidence: 4.5
    Delivery: 4
    Coherence: 4.5
    Responsiveness: 4
    Key points: 4.8

    Decision for: Proposition, Steven Dikowitz

    Hello, my name is Taylor Rosen and I am a student from Binghamton University.

    The following commentary is intended to be constructive for both competitors. I sincerely hope that you can each benefit at least a little from my words.

    Good delivery skill and clear points by the proposition got my vote mainly because the neg seemed to be on the defense most of the debate and gave no reason to vote for his side. Many of the arguments made by the prop went unanswered or were not addressed well enough.

    The prop was able to show why speciesism is a problem that has sufficient harms and needs to be dealt with and this was not disputed by the neg. I think the neg should have talked more about why the UN is not the right organization to deal with the issue occurring in taiji. This in turn would have given me a reason to vote for the neg because the aff was not focusing on the fact the the UN was the right player to take on the issue.

    Overall the prop was easier to understand and follow his arguments. The neg had a lot of good information hut failed to focus on a main point or counter plan. However, I think the neg was more professional but in the end the aff was more relatable, easier to follow and more convincing. I felt compelled to vote for the aff because it really made me feel that the dolphin hunt was really wrong and I could not find anything in the neg's arguments to change my mind.

    Good job by both competitors. I think both the aff and neg did a good job and the time and effort that was put into the debate was noticeable on both sides. Thank you.
    - Taylor Rosen on May 6, 2014 at 09:43PM 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