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: Steven Dikowitz (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Bridget Kernan (Wood River High School)

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.

  • Steven Dikowitz
    Steven Dikowitz
    vs.



    Bridget  Kernan
    Bridget Kernan
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2014 09:51:40PM EST by Steven Dikowitz

    Citations

    Show

    NOTE: Sorry for the double video, I downloaded webcam software just for the tournament so it's my first time using it. Next video will only be one of me, I promise.


    1. "Anthropocentrism IS how men and women justify systemic genocide, suffering, and oppression of entire species of animals"

    Rozin, Paul, et al. "Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships." Journal of Consumer Research (2012). <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664970>.

    2. "all 20 billion of our animal brothers and sisters that are killed each year"

    Statistics taken from http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-billion-farm-animals-killed-in-2010.html

    3. Human privilege is indelibly connected to violence and misogyny

    Zaikowski, Carolyn. "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle The Masters Rape Rack: Feminism and Animal Rights." May 16, 2012. http://liferoar.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-masters-tools-will-never-dismantle-the-masters-rape-rack-feminism-and-animal-rights/

    4. When we suffer we suffer as equals, and in our capacity to suffer..."
    Wollen, Philip. "Ethics in a Meat-Free World." 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApeIUzKLkuo

    5. "As Professor John Sorenson found in Constructing Extremists, Rejecting Compassion...."

    Sorenson, John. Constructing Extremists, Rejecting Compassion Critical Theory and Animal Liberation P224

    6. "The treatment of dolphins in drive hunts sharply contradict current animal welfare standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies"

    A Veterinary and Behavioral Analysis of Dolphin Killing Methods Currently Used in the Drive Hunt in Taiji, Japan
    Andrew Butterworth, Philippa Brakes, Courtney S. Vail, Diana Reiss
    Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
    Vol. 16, Iss. 2, 2013


    7. The only appropriate moral response to a history of human destructive action is to give up our claims to biological supremacy

    Kochi, Tarik & Ordan, Noam. "An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity." Borderlands.Vol 7, Issue 3, 2008. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf


    8. "The world is still a plantation"

    Quote I borrowed from Frank B. Wilderson, III. Irvine RR Conference - Discussion with Frank B. Wilderson III. March 9, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxMfL35rQsA

    Posted at April 30, 2014 01:41:37AM EST by Bridget Kernan

    Citations

    Show

    Theory

    A. Interpretation: The proposition must specify an advocacy between demand and decry with a specific plan text when trying to access offense for it.

    B. Violation: The proposition did not specify an advocacy.

    C. Standards:

    1) Ground

    2) Strategy skew

    3) Predictability

    D. Voters:
    Fairness
    Education

    Disadvantage: The UN is an ineffective agency that will only lead to more harms than actual change
    A. Link:
    1. UN resolutions are wholly ineffective the affirmative has zero solvency

    Mead, Walter R. "The United Nations Today: A Case Study in Failure." The American Interest. N.p., 16 Apr. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. <http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2012/04/16/the-united-nations-today-a-case-study-in-failure/>.

    2. Japan will not abide by a UN Decision and will only feign compliance as seen with the recent whaling decision

    SATO, Shigemi. "Japan to Redesign Antarctic Whale Hunt after UN Court Ruling." Yahoo News. N.p., 18 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. <http://news.yahoo.com/japan-continue-scientific-whaling-pacific-reports-054921014.html>.

    B. Impact: The impact is inaction. The affirmative directly trades off with taking action by giving states an excuse not to make hard choices.

    "2011 Annual Report." American Enterprise Institute, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. <http://www.aei.org/files/2012/01/10/-ar2011new_15462528616.pdf>.

    CP Text: The United States, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Vietnam and Brune should refuse to sign the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) until Japan bans the capture and slaughter of dolphins in the fishing town of Taiji.

    Observation 1: The negative may advocate a CP.

    Observation 2: I remain competitive by providing more net benefits and by actually providing solvency.

    Observation 3: The CP provides a direct path to solvency that truly fixes the problem.
    "Celebrities Demand President Make Japans Dolphin Slaughter a Key Factor in Next Round of TPP Negotiations." The Sparrow Project. N.p., 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. <http://www.sparrowmedia.net/2014/02/trans-pacific-partnership-taiji-dolphin-celebrities-tpp/>.

    Posted at April 30, 2014 04:56:33PM EST by Steven Dikowitz

    Citations

    Show

    Deckha, Maneesha 2010: Associate Professor at the University of Victoria Faculty of Law. Its time to abandon the idea of human rights, The Scavenger, December 13, 2010

    Posted at May 1, 2014 09:22:33PM EST by Bridget Kernan

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2014 09:26:05PM EST by Steven Dikowitz

    Citations

    Show

    60 Ways the United Nations Makes a Difference
    http://www.un.org/en/un60/60ways/

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 4, 2014 04:52:24PM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Steven Dikowitz Bridget Kernan
    Use of evidence: 4.6 4.5
    Delivery skill: 5.1 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 4.6
    Identification of key points: 4 4.1
    Comments: Profanity and Hitler / Holocaust comparisons will hurt you against most judges. I'm fine with the first, but I'm not a fan of the second. Same thing with slavery, especially when it could be argued that human slavery didn't end with the 13th Amendment either.

    I know and understand your arguments, but you could explain more of the warrants. Pull them out from your evidence.

    "The treatment of dolphins in drive hunts sharply contradict current animal welfare standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies" - that's super ethnocentric and whitewashes factory farms. Obviously not an argument in the round, but just saying.

    Don't be overly dismissive of the theory debate. You only provide a "we meet" and counter-interpretation without any warranted reasons to prefer.

    I think the opposition is right that you focus far more on the impact of the hunt than a method to solve it. The only reason you provide why the U.N.'s decry or demand would be good is that it's an additional tool to fight speciesism; this might be true, but you should explain why the U.N. specifically is key.

    How in the world would this one action by the U.N. end speciesism (Including the mass killing of animals within the U.S. that are not considered sentient), and if it somehow could, why then would the counter-plan not be able to? You don't explain why the U.N. can overcome any of the solvency deficits that the opposition provides on the "disadvantage", and only respond with a purely pathos-filled mystification of her "hollow victory" argument by conflating it with trivialization; sorry, not falling for it, and neither did she.

    Can't evaluate 5 reasons why the U.N. is effective in a rebuttal, much less the final rebuttal, if the issue was conceded in the previous speech.
    Competitive in the context of the counter-plan shell you are reading does not mean "it can win" like traditional usages of the term might imply. Instead, a counter-plan is competitive if 1. The plan and counter-plan cannot be done together (mutual exclusivity), or 2. The plan and the counter-plan together is worse than the counter-plan alone. Just because your counter-plan might be better than the plan does not mean it's competitive.

    You need to provide a reason why the plan is bad (offense) instead of just saying that it is not good (defense). Your disadvantage just seems to be a no solvency argument, which is not a reason to reject the proposition alone.

    You need to go all in on theory to win the debate on it. I don't have a clear story as to how he guts fairness or education so much that he should a-priori lose in the final speech.

    Summaries (or underviews) at the end of your speeches aren't necessary as I'm taking notes the whole time.

    You should make the argument that the U.N. demand would hurt the TPP negotiations as Japan would be perceived as already being dealt with by other means. This is how you can leverage your "feel-good reform" argument as a disadvantage to the perm.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Bridget Kernan

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition doesn't answer any of the opposition's evidence that the U.N. has empirically failed, and simultaneously provides no solvency deficits to the counter-plan. Thus, the counter-plan solves the entirety of the Taiji dolphin hunt, which is the only instance of anthropocentrism either side can claim, and there's only a risk that the U.N. acting would be a feel-good reform that disincentivizes further action. I wish I could vote on a stronger argument, but I either vote opposition on that or vote proposition on "more solvency," which I don't feel comfortable doing as I don't believe the proposition provides a sufficiency framing or any defense of the U.N. as an actor until the last speech.

    The opposition said it best: "If the issue we were talking about was whether dolphin hunting was bad or good, then yes, my opponent would win, but this is not." Steven, you are a great speaker and I can imagine very intimidating to face, but don't let your strong ethos and pathos disincentivize you from winning on logos as well.


    1 Comment

    Thank you so much for your time Judge, and thanks for the great feedback!
    Amazing job Steven! Like the judge said, very intimidating. Good luck with your other rounds. - Bridget Kernan on May 4, 2014 at 05:10PM 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