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: Christian Chessman (University of Florida)

Judge: Sarah Evans (Binghamton University)

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.



    Christian Chessman
    Christian Chessman
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2014 11:25:38PM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/27/opinion/safina-dolphin-hunt-killing-method/
    http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/08/26/mercury-poisoning-dolphin-meat-remains-key-issue-environmentalists
    http://www.naturalnews.com/043591_dolphin_hunts_japan_tradition.html
    http://www.worldstopexports.com/japans-top-10-exports/2097http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/publications/yir/2004/ch3.html

    Posted at April 29, 2014 12:39:21PM EST by Christian Chessman

    Citations

    Show

    A full transcript of the speech, including cites, is available in the description of the YouTube video.

    Posted at April 30, 2014 10:48:19PM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    Same as first speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2014 01:19:14AM EST by Christian Chessman

    Citations

    Show

    A full transcript of the speech - including cites - is available in the YouTube video description.

    Posted at May 2, 2014 02:53:25PM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    Same as first video.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 4, 2014 11:04:14AM EST by Sarah Evans

    Category Nathan Stouffer Christian Chessman
    Use of evidence: 2.5 4
    Delivery skill: 3 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 4.5
    Identification of key points: 3 5.5
    Comments: Good job extending your humyn damages advantage, however you never mention your dolphins suffering advantage after your first speech. Don't forget that animal suffering is important, too http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif
    You may in the future want focus on weighing these advantages in terms of doing nothing vs. solving even minimal harms.
    Good job explaining your evidence and not just re-reading it, etc. Also, good job evaluating the issues and explaining exactly what the key points are, and also why the aff doesn't solve for them.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Christian Chessman

    Reason for Decision:

    There are a few key arguments for me:
    The first is that the UN is ineffective and won't solve. Nathan claims that he can use sanctions, etc., but he gives no argument as to why doing both ("empty resolution" and concrete action) is better than just doing concrete action, as Christian proposes, so it's possible to avoid the harms the neg has outlined.
    The second is that Japan won't stop based on a resolution. Nathan claims that UN works and that it will deter whale hunting for at least a time, but the neg evidence shows that it hasn't stopped it in the past, and in fact Japan responded with a "whale buffet" so there's no reason to assume that the aff will solve anything this time. Nathan does a good job extending his humyn toxins impact during the round, but if Japan doesn't listen to the resolution there is no way to solve for these harms.
    Third there's no real response to Christian's arguments that a) the resolution will lead to the issue being viewed as solved when it isn't, http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/cool.gif issue confusion - the limited scope of the aff focusing on Taiji instead of addressing the underlying reasons and c) the Mead evidence which shows UN has no enforcement and lack political legitimacy. Together these arguments show why the UN (and therefore the aff) can't solve this issue, in fact taking action may actually make worse issues.


    3 Comments

    To be honest, I didn't even notice lol. I just responded by speeding up a little - Christian Chessman on May 4, 2014 at 06:51PM EST
    It's totally fine about going over. These things happen and I'm sure you'll learn from it http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif - Sarah Evans on May 4, 2014 at 06:15PM EST
    I would like to thank my opponent and judge for a great round. I apologize for going a minute over in my second speech. - Nathan Stouffer on May 4, 2014 at 04:34PM 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