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: Kanon Matsunaga (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Kathleene Humphries (Liberty High School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Kanon Matsunaga
    Kanon Matsunaga
    vs.



    Kathleene Humphries
    Kathleene Humphries
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 11, 2016 09:14:06AM EST by Kanon Matsunaga

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2016 01:14:55AM EST by Kathleene Humphries

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2016 08:46:37AM EST by Kanon Matsunaga

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2016 11:24:35PM EST by Kathleene Humphries

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2016 06:16:41PM EST by Kanon Matsunaga

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 17, 2016 10:53:39AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Kanon Matsunaga Kathleene Humphries
    Use of evidence: 2.5 3
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.7 4.7
    Identification of key points: 4.4 4.6
    Comments: You should provide citations for the evidence and arguments you are referencing. I like the two major points you're making on the topic. There seems to be some initial tension when the goal of preserving microbial life's endpoint is to use for humankind. You should impact the contamination argument with super diseases, etc. instead of talking in looser terms.

    You do a great job responding to your opponent. However, you need to go back to your initial points and carry through your impacts instead of just going into answer mode. Weigh your impacts about contamination as one of your main ways to answer your opponent. Good job with evidence indicting. You do this well toward the end of your speech when you get to way the irreversible harm still stands. I would lead with that and then go into answers.

    I like how you say that space drilling causes contamination. However, you need to answer that such measures are essential to exploring space. You should kick out of search for ET life and just go for space colonization bad / money better spent on earth, etc. Or go into more depth on the destruction of microbial life destroying planet earth.
    You should provide cites for your arguments in the citation box. I like your defining of "overriding" since I think that's the key opposition argument. I also like your attacks on international law. However, I think instead of just going for international law doesn't work that you should go for international law bad. Maybe a counterplan that did the aff but as individual nation-states. Again, I wish you provided links to your cites so your opponent could easily find them instead of just referencing them in your speech. You should post them in the system, not just n youtube since it makes it way easier for the judge and opponent to find them. I also like how you came around to answering your opponent for the last 90 seconds or so of your speech.

    Great job at answering your opponent while extending your main points and using your main points as answers. Waste of time explaining what contention each point is in. Again, I would be going for ilaw bad instead of ilaw fails. Be more offensive in your argumentation.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Kathleene Humphries

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the opposition on the argument that space drilling is key to space exploration, which is essential to solve for the prop's impact of searching for ET life. As I said above, I think the prop should stop trying to defend space exploration being good in this debate and just go for irreversible harm and the argument that space drilling will lead to contamination. If the prop went for only those arguments in her last speech I think she would have won the debate since opp just takes space exploration being desirable as a given (which it mostly is in this debate) and doesn't have a real defense of it. The secondary argument I vote on is that international law undermines the chance of the proposition solving since it's ineffective. The prop needs a better defense that international law works. Overall very good debate. I enjoyed watching.


    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