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: Bianca Larsen (Powell High School) vs. Opposition: Crystal Bouley (College of the Atlantic )

Judge: Brandon 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.

  • Bianca Larsen
    Bianca Larsen
    vs.



    Crystal Bouley
    Crystal Bouley
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 29, 2014 12:43:01AM EST by Bianca Larsen

    Citations

    Show

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

    Kevin Lickty. "Taiji Dolphin hunt: No celebration of culture." University Wire. 2014

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-02-10/news/os-ed-japan-dolphins-myword-021014-20140207_1_taiji-dolphin-shinto

    http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/18/issue/9/australia-v-japan-icj-halts-antarctic-whaling

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/packaged-whale-meat-in-ja/

    http://www.opsociety.org/issues/mercury-in-seafood

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2010/05/23/environment/experts-fear-taiji-mercury-tests-are-fatally-flawed/

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf

    Posted at April 30, 2014 02:28:32AM EST by Crystal Bouley

    Citations

    Show

    Rachelle Adams, 2008 (Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Law Institute @ Lewis and Clark Law School) Animal Law, vol 14, p.133

    Arne Kalland (Senior Researcher and deputy director Nordic Institute of Asian Studies in Copenhagen) Dec. 1993, Anthropology Today, 9-6, p.3-7

    Brian Morton (The Natural History Museum, London) Marine Pollution Bulletin 71 (2013) 1-2

    Tetsuhiko Endo, Jan 29th, 2014 (Editor of The Inertia Serf, international journalist, surfer activist, M.A., Postcolonial Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of London) Inertia Surf online: "Taiji's Dolphin Slaughter: Who's Really to Blame?"

    James Hatley (Prof. Philosophy, Salisbury Univ, USA) 2011, Environmental Philosophy, 8-2, p.1-21

    Posted at May 1, 2014 12:33:19AM EST by Bianca Larsen

    Citations

    Show


    Whales killed annually: http://www.campaign-whale.org/campaigns/japanese-whaling

    Dolphin kill totals -- http://www.ceta-base.com/drivefisheries.html

    Posted at May 2, 2014 02:23:20AM EST by Crystal Bouley

    Citations

    Show

    Rachelle Adams, 2008 (Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Law Institute @ Lewis and Clark Law School) Animal Law, vol 14, p.133

    Andrew Butterworth (Clinical Veterinary School, University of Bristol Veterinary School UK) Philippa Brakes & Courtney S. Vail (Whale and Dolphin Conservation UK) Diana Reiss (Dept Psychology, Hunter College, US) 01 Apr 2013. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16:2, 184-204

    Posted at May 3, 2014 01:18:34AM EST by Bianca Larsen

    Citations

    Show

    None this time. :)
    Thank you for the great debate!

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 4, 2014 02:49:14PM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Bianca Larsen Crystal Bouley
    Use of evidence: 4.6 4.4
    Delivery skill: 5 4.9
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.8 4.7
    Identification of key points: 5.3 5.1
    Comments: You can't just say "she conceded these three points, therefore I win" for two reasons:

    1. She didn't. She agreed with a lot of the case, but clearly disagreed with a lot of it, so saying that she concedes that the U.N. has to recognize the mercury risks is patently false.

    2. Concessions need implications. OK, dolphins deserve the same protections as humans; does that mean the U.N.'s action is good? Not necessarily. Connect these arguments and then the concessions become meaningful.

    The resolution does not say that you have to "solve" the hunts in Japan, but if a decry or demand negatively affects the situation, then that's a reason why the U.N. should not decry or demand the hunt. You would need to make arguments as to why ethical demands are more important than the consequences of those demands to make this not the case.

    You should answer her argument about how fishermen are forced to hunt. If implicated and expanded upon, this could be a disadvantage to the resolution and the permutation.

    You begin to provide net-benefits for your perm, which is very good, but you should go a step forward and explain why her counter-plan can't solve the mercury issue or lead to a broader recognition of dolphin sentience. This is especially true when you cite things like The Cove; sure, this is a reason why attention matters, but it's also a reason why non-governmental activism matters, which means the alternative could potentially solve your case.
    Your camera has a couple issues; some words do not come out properly.

    You have three arguments that provide offense against the resolution (In other words, why the affects of the U.N.'s demand would be bad). However, they need a little more development:

    1. Maybe the IWC was ignored, but how did this make the situation worse?
    2. How do the increased nationalistic sentiments affect the hunt? Unless you provide an independent impact to ethnocentrism, this argument doesn't get you much.
    3. How does making Taiji into a scapegoat make us more complicit in killing dolphins elsewhere than less? Perhaps make an argument as to how the U.N.'s actions would make countries like the U.S. more complicit with their own mass consumption of animals, which is uniquely ethnocentric because we care about dolphins and disregard even basic compassion for pigs mostly for cultural reasons.
    4. I really like your poor fisherperson argument; again, I just need more of an explanation as to how this works with the main impact in the round, which both teams seem to agree is the affect on the dolphins.

    Cool alternative. A few more examples would help. I would provide an explicit alternative text so that I know exactly what you are defending. You should also explain who enacts the alternative; do you fiat that the entire world adopts your alternative, or does this work differently?

    I don't think you're wrong to give your constructive as you do; you've clashed with many of her arguments and conceded others that you don't need to win to win the debate. However, you can't make new answers to old arguments in your rebuttal, so I dismiss your "anthropomorphizing" argument, which I would anyway as I don't understand what you mean by it without a lot of elaboration, nor why it matters without an implication.

    The proposition does not concede that she has no solvency. Both teams need to recognize that not literally saying "She says X, that's not true" does not mean X is true. She made multiple references to how the U.N.'s decry is key to spill over and gives empirical examples.

    I know you don't go for the alt, but aren't many of your arguments now answering your alt and not the res? What does The Cove have to do with the U.N.?

    The decision is for the Proposition: Bianca Larsen

    Reason for Decision:

    No alternative in the last opposition rebuttal nor answer to the permutation means I evaluate the resolution vs. the status quo. I evaluate this through a consequentialist lens as I agree with the opposition that the resolution can only be proven by its effects unless a different ethical framework is developed.

    IWC argument is defense; Taiji might not listen, but they also might. You need to explain how the IWC made matters worse and how the U.N.'s action would be the same.

    The opposition does not provide a weighing mechanism to compare the impact of more deaths vs. worse deaths. Most judges default to "body count" over "value to life" as it's significantly more objective. However, regardless of how I weigh these impacts, I side proposition because:

    1. There's no causality provided as to how The Cove made the methods more harmful, and
    2. The proposition makes the argument that awareness -> less people consume dolphins because of the dietary risks, which means there is a chance that the hunts could end completely in due time.

    If the alternative was extended in the Opposition Rebuttal & Closing, and she explained why things like The Cove are good and why what the IWC did was bad, this result would likely be different.


    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