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: Harley Norton (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: carlos romero (Wood River High School)

Judge: Randal Horobik (Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama)

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

  • Harley Norton
    Harley Norton
    vs.



    carlos romero
    carlos romero
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2014 01:52:46AM EST by Harley Norton

    Citations

    Show

    The Cove. Dir. Louie Psihoyos. Perf. Ric O'Barry. Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions, 2009. Online.

    "Marine Trophic Pyramid." University of Walkato. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. <http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/life-in-the-sea/sci-media/images/marine-trophic-pyramid/169349-5-eng-NZ/Marine-trophic-pyramid.png>.

    "A Real Plan of Action on Mercury" Michael T. Bender, Jane M. Williams, Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4598441?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=risks&searchText=of&searchText=humans&searchText=consuming&searchText=mercury&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Drisks%2Bof%2Bhumans%2Bconsuming%2Bmercury%26amp%3Bprq%3Dmercury%2Bin%2Bdolphins%26amp%3Bhp%3D25%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bracc%3Doff


    "Mercury Contamination in the Red Meat of Whales and Dolphins Marketed for Human Consumption in Japan." Environmental Science and Technology. Binghamton University Library, 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

    Posted at April 23, 2014 01:12:22PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2014 02:03:43AM EST by Harley Norton

    Citations

    Show

    The Cove. Dir. Louie Psihoyos. Perf. Ric O'Barry. Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions, 2009. Online.

    "Marine Trophic Pyramid." University of Walkato. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. <http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/life-in-the-sea/sci-media/images/marine-trophic-pyramid/169349-5-eng-NZ/Marine-trophic-pyramid.png>.

    "A Real Plan of Action on Mercury" Michael T. Bender, Jane M. Williams, Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4598441?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=risks&searchText=of&searchText=humans&searchText=consuming&searchText=mercury&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Drisks%2Bof%2Bhumans%2Bconsuming%2Bmercury%26amp%3Bprq%3Dmercury%2Bin%2Bdolphins%26amp%3Bhp%3D25%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bracc%3Doff


    "Mercury Contamination in the Red Meat of Whales and Dolphins Marketed for Human Consumption in Japan." Environmental Science and Technology. Binghamton University Library, 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 03:01:20PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 08:36:14PM EST by Harley Norton

    Citations

    Show

    "Mercury Contamination in the Red Meat of Whales and Dolphins Marketed for Human Consumption in Japan." Environmental Science and Technology. Binghamton University Library, 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2014 05:09:04PM EST by Randal Horobik

    Category Harley Norton carlos romero
    Use of evidence: 2.7 2
    Delivery skill: 2.6 1.9
    Coherence of arguments: 3 2.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 2.6
    Identification of key points: 3.6 2.4
    Comments: Harley, given the time disadvantage you were confronted with in both your rebuttal speeches due to your opponent posting 12+ hours late, I thought they were your best-presented speeches. This shows through in my scores for your responsiveness and identification of key points above. I thought the initial case was plagued by too much time spent on what I would consider colorful tales rather than solid argumentation (Example: The Lion King "circle of life" story, while illustrative, consumed way more time than necessary and easily could be replaced by an academic quote summarizing the same thing in a far shorter amount of time.) My biggest suggestion for improvement in your debate future would therefore be to strive for an economy of language to maximize what you can do with those minutes you are allocated. You could pack a lot more sources into that initial 4 minutes. Also, I would be remiss as a rhetorician if I didn't beg for fewer um's in your next opening constructive http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif Carlos, while it is correct that the format does not require you to cite your sources, it is always a good idea to do so, especially when your opponent has done so. This is a courtesy to both your opponent and the judge and allows an avenue for you to obtain greater speaker credibility in the minds of your listeners. While you clashed with your opponent's case, I never really sensed a clear opposition thesis that your comments were centered around. I thought you were going for an "all killing is immoral so don't singularly protect dolphins" angle at the start of your first contention, but then that disappeared never really to be heard again. In the second contention you introduce a "UN should ban shows" counter resolution idea, but again never really develop it. The we got into quality of life. As a result, the various parts of the case seemed to lack coherence and unity with one another. You had some good ideas, but they needed united under a central banner or theme. Biggest suggestions for your debating future -- work on your delivery so I can hear more passion and persuasive tones in your remarks. Also, remember to be a salesman in that final rebuttal. I never heard you tell me why you thought you ought to win the round. Give me an issue or two that you see as a clear Opp voter. Sell yourself to my ballot -- you left 50 seconds in the bank in your rebuttal that would have been well served to this purpose. Props for participating in the event -- being a high school student with college opposition can be an intimidating arena to walk into, so congrats for making the effort!

    The decision is for the Proposition: Harley Norton

    Reason for Decision:

    My understanding from talking to the tournament administrator is that an agreement was made between parties to pardon the Opp's missed post times due to technical issues. In absence of this agreement, the time delays would have been egregious enough to have me sign a Prop ballot regardless of what was said. In light of it, however, I will proceed to a discussion of the points of this week's debate as I see them.

    Ms. Norton features three main arguments in Prop -- morality/immorality of the hunt, ecosystem disruption and human health impacts. With Neg. lacking a counter-thesis throughout his constructive, I'm basically looking to see if any of these three areas carries through.

    The immorality of the hunt basically vanishes from the debate, but it is noteworthy to recognize that Opp acknowledges in his constructive that killing is not right.

    Ecosystem impacts...neither side really presents me with direct evidence on the impact of the dolphin hunt on the ecosystem. The marine pyramid introduced by Prop in constructive was nice, Opp countered in rebuttal with some Natl. Geographic reference, but both sides would be served to find evidence specifically telling me either how the ecosystem is being negatively thrown off (more fish, carnivorous squids, etc. kind of does this, but maybe I like calimari, so this could be a good thing...why must I see more squid in a negative light Ms. Norton?) or how balance is being maintained (Mr. Romero attempts to parallel the dolphin hunt with prior extinctions, but never really asserts that there isn't some residual damage possibly being done via the hunt, which is really the key response to be making here).

    Human health impacts -- This, for me, is the clear voting area of the round. Opp fails to respond to this until his closing rebuttal, which makes pretty much everything said at that point a new argument and voidable on my flow. Prop is also able to absorb Opp's quality of life line of reasoning here
    by noting that health trumps income, which I never hear Opp refute subsequently. Great job by Prop of identifying her easiest route to victory after the constructive phase by riding this point (it probably could have been pushed harder, to be honest).

    Other Stuff -- Opp built a good area of clash early in his constructive with the "dolphin intelligence is a myth" line, but then I thought you undermined the whole avenue with your next claim that all killing is not right. I don't see the rationale for taking the time to equate dolphins with other animals if you are then going to feed the Prop position that killing is wrong. This line really only looks useful to me if/when paired with an attempt to say the dolphin hunt is no more morally wrong than the millions of cattle slaughtered for consumption each year (or something to that effect).

    The UN should ban dolphin shows suggestion -- This was an interesting idea that I think can be developed to some extent as a counterplan, but Prop here was able to tie in the "killing is wrong" admission noted above and show that it produced no solvency to a portion of the harms identified, namely the killing. In lieu of evidence saying the loss of income from show dolphin sales would halt the hunt or that the evils of the shows surpass the evils of the hunt, this area now cannot win the round for you as it cannot take out the totality of the Prop position. Also, this suggestion gets taken out in large part by Opp's own subsequent argumentation that the UN has bigger issues to deal with as the things he cites there shut out his own proposed resolution as much as they do Prop's.

    More dolphins killed by fishing nets -- Again, an interesting area that I'm not sure was used as effectively as it could have been (in part because it never was made into a big enough issue by Opp in his rebuttal). If 300K are killed each year via nets, that's still better than 322K killed by nets + hunting, right? So I'm not dissuaded from leaning Prop here. Good idea, but push the execution deeper to demonstrate a lack of solvency for Prop harms (i.e.-we'll still have immoral actions, we won't solve the ecosystem impacts, we'll still have people eating dolphin meat...now it grows from an interesting factoid to an argument with teeth that you can go on the offensive with.)

    Thank you both for a good debate. My inbox is open and available should either of you have any questions specific to this feedback or to inquire about parts of the debate not mentioned herein.


    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