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: Samson Widerman (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Jordan Wade (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Neil Berch (West Virginia University)

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

  • Samson Widerman
    Samson Widerman
    vs.



    Jordan Wade
    Jordan Wade
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 09:52:16PM EST by Samson Widerman

    Citations

    Show

    Sources:
    - Dolphin Intelligence - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882
    - http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/dolphin-names/
    - Ecological Importance- http://education.seattlepi.com/dolphins-ecological-importance-5511.html
    -Interview with Satashi Komiyama - http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/09/25/taking-ownership-one-japanese-protestors-fight-against-slaughter-cove
    -Indias Declaration on Dolphins- http://io9.com/no-india-did-not-just-grant-dolphins-the-status-of-hum-1149482273
    -Yoko Onos Open letter - http://dolphinproject.org/blog/post/yoko-onos-open-letter-to-taiji
    - Mercury Poisoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/asia/20iht-dolphin.1.10223011.html?_r=0
    - UN effectiveness - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/world/europe/united-nations-court-rules-against-japan-in-whaling-dispute.html
    - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/04/japan-cuts-whaling-targets-after-un-ruling-201441873239567606.html

    Posted at April 23, 2014 12:20:41AM EST by Jordan Wade

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2014 11:31:11PM EST by Samson Widerman

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/

    Posted at April 24, 2014 11:15:48PM EST by Jordan Wade

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 09:28:51PM EST by Samson Widerman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 11:34:53AM EST by Neil Berch

    Category Samson Widerman Jordan Wade
    Use of evidence: 4.2 3
    Delivery skill: 4 3.8
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 4.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 4.7
    Identification of key points: 3.8 4.5
    Comments: You do a good job of presenting your case, with a good deal of evidence. In the rebuttals, in some respects (see below) you're too offensive, and in others, you're too defensive. I'm not sure that the procedural is as big a deal as you make it. I think it could easily have been answered in the Proposition's rebuttal, but he saves his good answers for the closing speech.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Jordan Wade

    Reason for Decision:

    So there are three issues in this round, clearly defined by the Opposition in his closing/rebuttal. The first is the procedural issue of the time overrun. The Proposition could have dealt with this easily in his next speech by raising the issues from the rules that he eventually raises (too late) in the conclusion. I think the Opposition probably wins this flow (even though I think it's a pretty bad argument), but it doesn't matter, because I decide the debate elsewhere.

    The second argument is one about whether this is a policy debate. The Proposition side is too defensive on this one, as he is (to my mind) making a policy proposal. In any event, the Opposition doesn't leave me with a reason to vote on this (in part because he is correctly using his time on the CP).

    So that takes me to plan versus counterplan. Proposition argues that plan will solve faster and at lower cost, (and barely that CP is Proposition ground, but he doesn't really extend or impact that). Opposition argues that plan is hypocritical (not impacted well) and that CP will solve more fully (better impacted).

    While the debate is generally very high-level, and both of you do a good job of identifying key arguments, neither of you really explains to the judge how to weigh the plan vs. counterplan impacts (you just extend your own). Having to do so myself, I find that Opposition's CP is slightly better because it is likely to solve more completely.

    General suggestion to both sides: weigh impacts more fully in final speeches ("even if my opponent wins that..., I still win because X outweighs that"). For Proposition, earlier and better analysis would help. For Opposition, a piece of evidence advocating CP would help.

    Excellent debate; good luck to both of you in rest of tournament and in all that you do!--Neil Berch


    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