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: Lindsey Hancock (Mercer University) vs. Opposition: Byron Ruano (Binghamton University)

Judge: Paul Mabrey (James Madison University)

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

  • Lindsey Hancock
    Lindsey Hancock
    vs.



    Byron Ruano
    Byron Ruano
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 11:30:18PM EST by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/index.shtml
    http://arkitecturadellenguaje.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mirror-neurons-and-the-evolution-of-brain-and-language-advances-in-consciousness-research-by-maksim-i-stamenov.pdf
    http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/6669469.stm
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1997.tb00160.x/abstract
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/4750471.stm
    http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-pacelle/japans-shameful-butchery_b_4646890.html
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23380-new-japanese-method-for-killing-dolphins-is-inhumane.html#.U1XVPfldX4U
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ambassador-muhamed-sacirbey/is-animal-rights-the-next_b_4568717.html

    Posted at April 23, 2014 12:43:01AM EST by Byron Ruano

    Citations

    Show

    --INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING
    <http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1r2jdhu5xtuswws0ocw04wgcw/convention.pdf>

    --UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
    <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml>

    --UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS ON THE LAW OF SEA
    <http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm>

    --WORLD CHARTER FOR NATURE
    <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm>

    Posted at April 23, 2014 11:35:29PM EST by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_260#Definition_of_genocide
    http://www.zaxtor.net/B.htm

    Posted at April 25, 2014 12:19:08AM EST by Byron Ruano

    Citations

    Show

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_on_Animal_Welfare

    http://www.wspa-international.org/wspaswork/udaw/Default.aspx

    https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

    Posted at April 26, 2014 02:51:42AM EST by Lindsey Hancock

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 05:21:37PM EST by Paul Mabrey

    Category Lindsey Hancock Byron Ruano
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 3 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.4 2.7
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: I vote negative because the U.N. should not decry something that is not (yet) illegal because it would undermine state sovereignty and the very existence of the U.N.

    The affirmative should have brought the debate back to the original framework established in the first speech to overcome the appeal to law and sovereignty.
    I vote negative because the U.N. should not decry something that is not (yet) illegal because it would undermine state sovereignty and the very existence of the U.N.

    The affirmative should have brought the debate back to the original framework established in the first speech to overcome the appeal to law and sovereignty.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Byron Ruano

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote negative because the U.N. should not decry something that is not (yet) illegal because it would undermine state sovereignty and the very existence of the U.N.

    The affirmative should have brought the debate back to the original framework established in the first speech to overcome the appeal to law and sovereignty.


    2 Comments

    I'm also concerned about what happened to the perm on the judge's RFD. - Caleb Maier on April 27, 2014 at 06:59PM EST
    This was a profoundly bad decision on the part of the judge. Not only did Opp completely drop a kritik, but he also failed to link his "illegal" disad to the impact. There was literally no link. Furthermore, the idea that the killing of the dolphins did not constitute a breech of peace was a direct link to the K , something that the Prop pointed out very clearly. - Caleb Maier on April 27, 2014 at 06:50PM 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