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: Reika Tanabe (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Petra Glenn (Wood River High School)

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.

  • Reika Tanabe
    Reika Tanabe
    vs.



    Petra Glenn
    Petra Glenn
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 11, 2016 05:42:48PM EST by Reika Tanabe

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 12, 2016 09:25:04PM EST by Petra Glenn

    Citations

    Show

    Smith-Strickland, Kiona. "Why Scientists Have Been Scared of Space Germs for Almost 50 Years." Gizmodo. Gizmodo, 22 June 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.

    Packer, Joe. "NASA Astrobiology Debates Interview." Interview. NASA ASTROBIOLOGY DEBATES. NASA, 2015. Web. 7 Apr. 2016

    Posted at April 14, 2016 02:17:41AM EST by Reika Tanabe

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2016 10:56:13PM EST by Petra Glenn

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2016 08:51:53AM EST by Reika Tanabe

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 16, 2016 12:09:34PM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Reika Tanabe Petra Glenn
    Use of evidence: 3.7 4
    Delivery skill: 3 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.2 3.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.5 3.7
    Identification of key points: 3.3 4
    Comments: (Comments are not the part of the reasons of the decision.)

    1. Eye contact : What you can be improved next time is your eye contact. Not only for judge, but the audience generally more focused the speech of speaker when they think the speaker see them directly.

    2. What you could have been improved better in your one of your important of your case is, 'the very importance of international law' in this issue. If you could have explained better why private corporations and governments of each countries cannot protect the extraterrestrial microbial lives by their own laws, and how countries can cooperate to make new international law like the cases of Antarctic Treaty, Universal of declaration of human rights, and other successes.
    (Comments are not the part of the reasons of the decision.)

    1. Time management : Not bad. But especially in your second speech, as long as you were guaranteed to speak in 4 minutes, 3:18 was a little bit short to expand your case further.

    2. Ok. Maybe human life is more important than microbal lives(especially if they are aliens.). But you could have explained better why human expansion to other planets can destroy microbal lives so easily because I had doubt that human cannot do co-exist with extraterrestrial microbal lives under reasonable caution.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Petra Glenn

    Reason for Decision:

    1st, is it important to protect extraterrestrial microbial life & eco-systems?
    Proposition speaker suggested the answer "yes" by suggesting the benefits like scientific development and mutual benefits for all countries. But when opposition speaker suggested that 'human life is more important than microbal life', and provided the benefit from swift colonization, I cannot decide this issue just based on 'practical benefits' because neither side provide specific picture of benefits.
    When opposition speaker suggested the idea "human life > microbal life" because microbal lives are not that important to be considered(because of aliens, uncertain to exist, etc), the response of propostion was human = microbal. But in this point, the reason to proposition speaker was human are already protected, but microbal lives are not protected, I don't know why these kinds of difference of protection level cannot be justified from the proposition speakers case. That's the reason why this issue goes to opposition speaker.

    2nd, Why/Why not international law?
    Proposition speaker emphasized the 'need' for international law. But as opposition speaker pointed out, what the international law can do in this issue, what the other ways to protect extraterrestrial microbial life is not working were uncertain from propostion speaker, while opposition speaker pointed out the vagueness and infeasibility of international law to directly touch the issue in this debate. 2nd issue also goes to opposition.


    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