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: Nathan Stouffer (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Brisco Joseph (North Star Academy)

Judge: Carlos Varela (University of Vermont)

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

  • Nathan Stouffer
    Nathan Stouffer
    vs.



    Brisco Joseph
    Brisco Joseph
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 11:43:34AM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/08/26/mercury-poisoning-dolphin-meat-remains-key-issue-environmentalists

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/27/opinion/safina-dolphin-hunt-killing-method/

    Posted at April 22, 2014 06:25:29PM EST by Brisco Joseph

    Citations

    Show

    Brisco Joseph 04/22/14

    Posted at April 24, 2014 12:22:30PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2014 06:19:53PM EST by Brisco Joseph

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 07:47:10PM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 11:34:33PM EST by Carlos Varela

    Category Nathan Stouffer Brisco Joseph
    Use of evidence: 3.8 3
    Delivery skill: 3.6 2.7
    Coherence of arguments: 2.6 2.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.2 2.1
    Identification of key points: 3.8 2.6
    Comments: MY personal strategy suggestion: During your first rebuttal, as soon as you notice your opponent drops, or does not answer a key contention of your plan, as happened in this debate when your opponent dropped the "dolphin meat is toxic/lethal" argument, I would have briefly mentioned the other contention, while allocating the grand majority (75%) of my speech time to 1) assuring that the judge understands that the argument was in fact dropped, and 2) the importance of that argument in this debate round. i.e. why that dropped argument will win you the round.

    Also, although you did enough articulation in your final speech, the reasons why his dropping your arguments win you the round, could be better. Brainstorm some reasons why dropped arguments win you the round.
    It is good to write out the entire speech of your opponent on a (or several) pieces of paper. Divide the paper lengthwise (top to bottom) creating two columns. On the left column, write out your opponents arguments in outline format. Identify main points, are bullet them out on the page. On the right side of the page, and in a different color ink write the answers to your opponents arguments. This way you will assure to have answered all the arguments advanced, and thus not allowing your opponent any unnecessary offense.

    What I would do: listen to speech once or twice as soon as possible. Allow for several hours, if not a full 24 hours, before dissecting the speech as mentioned in the paragraph above. This allows for the mind to really "digest" arguments.

    Also, once an argument is conceded, you have to address the fact that it was dropped, then answer the argument. For example, one could say "Although I may not have refuted it directly, i did advance an argument that does address that point in this other part of my speech". Or " I did drop his contention, but that doesn't matter as this other argument is more important or supersedes it.

    The only other option would have been to refute your opponents claim that the opposition should not be allowed to advance new arguments in the "opposition rebuttal and closing" speech. Say that the opposition should be able to advance new arguments in the last speech. (i.e. "the opposition speeches are given to the opposition debaters, and they shall choose how they organize, and use them." or " It's not a dropped argument till the debate is over."

    Good job overall, and Im sure this mistake will never be repeated. Keep up the good work. Opposition debating is never easy, but even less so in with this resolution, but you did a good job.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Nathan Stouffer

    Reason for Decision:

    First, I would like to thank both debaters on sharing their ideas and debating with me. I enjoyed it very much.

    Both sides had well organized cases, and enjoy a solid foundation for the intricacies of the debate.

    The proposition had two main contentions in the debate: 1) killing dolphins is bad, and 2) Dolphin meat is toxic and deadly to humans. The opposition constructive advanced reasoning why killing dolphins is not bad, and actually good i.e. cultural reasons.

    Despite the fact that the opposition did a very good job to neutralize the propositions first contention, the second contention was not addressed at all. When the opposition did address the contention regarding the toxicity and lethality of dolphin meat, it was during the "opposition rebuttal & closing" speech. This is too late to be addressing such an important argument, as it does not allow the proposition a proper opportunity to refute the argument, since the last speech is for closing remarks (i.e. telling the judge why they won or how they should vote), and not for making new arguments. TAKE NOTE: Advancing new evidence substantiating a point previously mentioned is acceptable. But brand new arguments (i.e. "yes, the dolphin meat is toxic, but only when consumed in quantities over a pound) have to be advanced during the first opposition constructive. Otherwise, the argument will be evaluated as a conceded point.

    The proposition efficiently articulated why the dropped argument won him the debate in the final proposition speech.

    For this reason, I am obligated to conclude that dolphin meat is indeed toxic, and deadly to humans, warranting my vote for the proposition.

    (To the proposition: )
    http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


    1 Comment

    PROPOSITION
    Delivery: 3.2
    Evidence: 3.8
    Coherence: 2.5
    Responsiveness: 3
    Key points: 4

    OPPOSITION
    Delivery: 3
    Evidence: 2.8
    Coherence: 3
    Responsiveness: 2
    Key points: 3.3

    Decision for: Proposition, Nathan Stouffer

    Hello, my name is Byron Ruano 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.

    First of I would like to congratulate both sides on a well organized debate and content of information. However, that brings me directly to the reason why I voted affirmative for the proposition.

    The opposition did in fact neglect to provide a response to the propositions contentions in the Opposition Constructive Speech. Therefore those contentions where accepted as truth. The opposition went against the rules when he provided new information in his last speech (Opposition Rebuttal and Closing).

    My decision should not steal away from the fact that the opposition did provide valid points regarding the matter. However, due to the lack of response against the proposition's contention 2, all of the opposition's points where negated by the fact that mercury consumption is stealing away humans lives like the proposition stated again and again.
    Lastly for the opposition, I urge you to improve your eye contact. It is good to basically write up your whole speech prior to presenting it but by reading from the paper for the duration of all your videos is detrimental to the delivery of your arguments.

    As far as the proposition goes, good job holding your grounds in regards to your contentions. Your closing video definitely sealed the deal by discrediting the opposition's attacks based on tournament regulations. For you, I urge the opposite of what I said to your opponent. Your eye contact is good but your speeches started out strong and then became quite weak in regards to delivery and coherence. You should maybe try writing up a little more of your speech before you present it, in order to facilitate and improve your flow and to avoid unnecessary comments. The opposition was busy arguing other things and did not address your confusing and (I think) unwanted comments about the rights of chickens but mistakes like that could easily turn into a slippery slope. - Byron Ruano on May 2, 2014 at 01:45PM 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