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: Illiah Pfau (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Mary Kathryn Howard (Tiftarea Academy)

Judge: Rikki Dascal (Binghamton University)

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

  • Illiah Pfau
    Illiah Pfau
    vs.



    Mary Kathryn Howard
    Mary Kathryn Howard
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 04:00:04PM EST by Illiah Pfau

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.imms.org/dolphinfaq.php
    http://www.dolphins.org/why_its_important

    Posted at April 22, 2014 09:43:03PM EST by Mary Kathryn Howard

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Slaughterhouse.html

    Posted at April 23, 2014 11:06:17PM EST by Illiah Pfau

    Citations

    Show

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    Posted at April 24, 2014 11:27:24PM EST by Mary Kathryn Howard

    Citations

    Show

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    Posted at April 25, 2014 08:08:47PM EST by Illiah Pfau

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 05:25:02PM EST by Rikki Dascal

    Category Illiah Pfau Mary Kathryn Howard
    Use of evidence: 3.2 2.7
    Delivery skill: 3.2 2.2
    Coherence of arguments: 2.7 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 1.7 2.8
    Identification of key points: 2.8 3.2
    Comments: Proposition- You need to address your lack of a time frame; spent too much time in last speech on things that didn't matter. If you're going for the Godwin argument and expect to win on it, you need more analysis and really need to go all in on it. Pay attention to voters that the other side lays out. Opposition- Extremely scripted. If you're going for voter on vagueness of plan, it should show actual abuse. Here, you had plenty of things to argue. W/ your anthro/imperialism args, I don't know if you're proposing a CP or advocating for a critique- it tends to shift a bunch throughout your speeches.
    You go for both arguments in the end, so you should probably explain how they are not mutually exclusive, or just go for one.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Mary Kathryn Howard

    Reason for Decision:

    Voted for the opposition only because the proposition didn't show how he solved; in the final speech, he failed to answer opposition's 3 reasons why aff plan doesn't solve, so I should assume that it doesn't actually solve anything.




    1 Comment

    Here is what I would have decided for this argument had I watched the videos and not read the judges comments:

    Illiah Pfau You make a very general argument, and I think that is okay, but spent too much time showing why its okay instead of defending your case against the counter plan. You need to make a stronger case why the end the judge should vote for you.

    Evidence - 2.5
    Delivery - 3.2
    Coherence - 4
    Responsiveness 2.8
    Key Points - 3

    Mary Kathryn Howard I think you are too critical of your opponents interpretation of the resolution and put words in his mouth at times. Your counter plan is constructed well enough that it and holds up against the propositions rebuttal, but could be more clearly defined.

    Evidence 2.8
    Delivery 3.5
    Coherence 2.8
    Responsiveness 3.2
    Key Points 4


    Winner: Mary Kathryn Howard

    Although certain things were said by the opposition that were extreme exaggerations or unfair procedural arguments, she make the much stronger case for her counter plan as opposed to the oppositions defense of his affirmation of the resolution. The proposition needed a lot more evidence to win on the Godwin law or how the counter plan was outside the realm of the resolution.
    I would have liked to see the opposition respond without the procedural arguments, since I think it would have made for a much more lively and interesting debate. Both debaters had very good delivery and did an overall good job with the debate.
    http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif - Samson Widerman on May 3, 2014 at 12:20PM 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