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.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 28, 2014 11:25:38PM EST by Nathan Stouffer
Posted at April 29, 2014 12:39:21PM EST by Christian Chessman
A full transcript of the speech, including cites, is available in the description of the YouTube video.
Posted at May 2, 2014 01:19:14AM EST by Christian Chessman
A full transcript of the speech - including cites - is available in the YouTube video description.
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|
|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
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, 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.