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: Hazuki Kido (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Derek Medolla (Binghamton University)

Judge: Min Seob Lee (Kyunghee University)

Resolution: THBT: An overriding ethical obligation to protect and preserve extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems should be incorporated into international law.

  • Hazuki Kido
    Hazuki Kido
    vs.



    Derek Medolla
    Derek Medolla
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 11, 2016 05:40:49PM EST by Hazuki Kido

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 12, 2016 09:22:57PM EST by Derek Medolla

    Citations

    Show

    "An Ethical Duty: Let Astronautical Development Unfold - To make the People more secure" by Marco C. Bernasconi

    Source: Saara Reiman, published professor at the University of Helsinki.

    O'Neill, Ian. "Why the Hunt for Extraterrestrial Life Is Important : DNews."DNews. N.p., 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.

    Posted at April 13, 2016 09:40:12AM EST by Hazuki Kido

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2016 10:06:50PM EST by Derek Medolla

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2016 10:32:36AM EST by Hazuki Kido

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 16, 2016 12:47:29PM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Hazuki Kido Derek Medolla
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 3.7 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 3.4
    Identification of key points: 3.8 3.6
    Comments: (Comments are not the part of decision.)

    1. What you coud have been improved better was "feasibility" issue. How international law can deal with this issue better than status quo? There are domestic laws from each governments, and incentives of genetic engineering industries and other related industries to possibly protect 'extraterrestrial' lives.

    2. To prevent the rebuttal 'it is not the important current issue', better designed definition can help you better. As long as the topic requires 'extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems' which are not uncertain to exist in the status quo, you can define the 'status quo' by assuming the exisitence of these things, and the time and place for adequate to discuss the urgent of this issue for more clear debate.
    (Comments are not the part of decision.)

    1. Money is always the issue. 'New international law' can increase the burden of gov budget and taxpayers pocket was reasonable assumption. But if you could have explained why increased budget will be wasted without long-term return and justification, and why the oppotunity cost is inevitable, your case could have been stronger.

    2. Same material like 1st comment to proposition, but opposite way to use the material.
    How the creativity of private corporations can save microbes and ecosystems by themselves without the intervention from international law? Even if the creation and operation of international law is feasible, how it can cause more harm than good?

    The decision is for the Proposition: Hazuki Kido

    Reason for Decision:

    1. Do we need to protect extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems?
    Proposition speaker said "yes" by using analogy of the cases in New Zealand and Hawaii. Plus she also use the logic of protecting environment of the earth to protect the extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems, too. The response of the opposition was, there are more urgent issues on the earth so the issue of extraterrestrial lives is not relatively important and universe is originally hostile environment so it is not part of discussion. But if we consider the topic initially requires to deal with the situation where extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems is part of our lives, opposition speaker's logic cannot deal with the situation if the human kind need to live other planets and the environments of these planets are the key factor of human survival in the moment. The analogy and application of proposition speaker can deal with this situation better than the opp's case so this issue goes to proposition speaker.

    2nd, opposition speaker provide why international law is not working. I understood their are too many differences, conflicts, difficulties to make international laws. But what I want to hear was, how these difficultes can specifically related to the case of extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems. While the link from the opp speaker missed in this point, proposition provide the reason why we need international law(mutual benefit of human kind, scientific development, danger of extinction), and how unregulated private corporations can destroy environment so easily. Opp said that arbitraty regulation can hinder the creativity of corporations, but it was uncertain how the creativity can do co-exist 'development' and 'preservation' at the same time, or at least, how benefit of creativity of some private corporations can overcome the loss of unknown possibilites, the microbes and ecosystems.


    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