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: Bridget Kernan (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Brian Cheon (NEI Education)

Judge: Dan Weiser (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Bridget  Kernan
    Bridget Kernan
    vs.



    Brian Cheon
    Brian Cheon
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 06:06:42PM EST by Bridget Kernan

    Citations

    Show

    "Are Dolphins People, Too?" The Week. N.p., 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://theweek.com/article/index/104684/are-dolphins-people-too%20%20Dolphins%20deserve%20human%20rights.%20That%27s%20the%20statement%20being>.

    "DOLPHINS ARE NOT FOOD." Blue Voice. Harvard School of Medical Health, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://bluevoice.org/news_notfood.php>.


    http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2005/05/weekly_top_10_l.html

    Posted at April 22, 2014 09:59:20PM EST by Brian Cheon

    Citations

    Show

    Sea.sheperd.org

    Posted at April 23, 2014 04:29:10PM EST by Bridget Kernan

    Citations

    Show

    http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Tournaments/7/Invite/binghamton-university-s-2nd-annual-online-debate-tournament/

    Posted at April 24, 2014 11:41:28PM EST by Brian Cheon

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 05:04:22PM EST by Bridget Kernan

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 08:51:10AM EST by Dan Weiser

    Category Bridget Kernan Brian Cheon
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 4 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 2.6
    Identification of key points: 4.5 4
    Comments: Really nice job creating a compelling case! You made sure to bring the case through the whole debate even when many would get caught up with the opposition arguments and leave the case behind. Just be careful responding to procedural arguments in your first rebuttal. I don't think you gave it enough time considering it was what he based most if his opposition on. Nice work!! Great job with the procedural debate. You had a very clear and valid contention with the design of the prop case and definitely exceeded my expectations on your final speech with how well you presented your argument. Really well done.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Bridget Kernan

    Reason for Decision:

    You both should be really proud of this debate! Ultimately I went for the prop for two reasons. The first is that there is no clear mandate for a certain style of debate in this particular competition. It was clear to me from the start that the prop was affirming the resolution. That is to say the world where an action that falls within the resolution happens is a better world. This is fair even in a policy debate because it theoretically gives the opposition side all the ground afforded by the resolution. They are held to defend against pretty much anything because they affirm some action being taken by the resolution. So I agree with the prop framework. My second reason for voting this way is that the opposition didn't not prove any impact to her supposed abusive style of argument. In the last speech you presented a great analysis of why the case was not within the policy framework. Right as you get the the point I am expecting you to tell me about the impact of all this, as in how you were abused by it, you go on to extend the hypocrisy debate which was just not developed enough to be a place I'm going to vote. Now these kind of affirming the resolution arguments can be abusive but you have to prove it and show me how you lost ground by her not giving a specific plan. Next time put out a dis ad to the plan. If she says no link because that's not our plan - that's ground you lost. If you put out a counter plan and she says sure that's an example of what can be done by the proposition plan. That's lost ground. The most important part of a procedural argument is how you lost ground and what impact there is. You have no proof of ground loss and no impact analysis so I can't vote for it. But be careful, the opp argued that case well. Change how you approach it a bit and it can be an easy win!


    2 Comments

    Thanks Bridget !!! You were the best debater I've ever seen. And thanks judge for judging!! - Brian Cheon on April 27, 2014 at 04:48PM EST
    Thank you so much for judging again! And thank you for the feedback.
    Awesome job Brian. - Bridget Kernan on April 27, 2014 at 02:01PM 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