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: Nanami Abematsu (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Olivia Dennison (Binghamton University)

Judge: Serge Danielson-Francois (Divine Child High School)

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

  • Nanami Abematsu
    Nanami Abematsu
    vs.



    Olivia Dennison
    Olivia Dennison
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 11, 2016 08:59:21AM EST by Nanami Abematsu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 12, 2016 10:03:44PM EST by Olivia Dennison

    Citations

    Show

    Rachel Riederer, editor at Guernica: a magazine of art & politics. Whose Moon Is It Anyways?
Dissent, Volume 61, Number 4, Fall 2014, pp. 6-10
https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dissent/v061/61.4.riederer.html

    Posted at April 13, 2016 09:34:49AM EST by Nanami Abematsu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2016 08:36:52PM EST by Olivia Dennison

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2016 08:42:40AM EST by Nanami Abematsu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 17, 2016 09:11:16PM EST by Serge Danielson-Francois

    Category Nanami Abematsu Olivia Dennison
    Use of evidence: 3 3.6
    Delivery skill: 2.8 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.8 3
    Identification of key points: 2.7 3
    Comments: The "irreversible damage" standard is somewhat draconian as exploration entails some level of harm.Analogy to rainforests could have been developed more extensively.Privatization of space argument should have been introduced in the constructive. Strong use of evidence to support refutation of the resolution. Very compelling delivery style. Not sure a counterplan was necessary. Asteroid claim was a stretch. The accent on ecosystems was strategic and well played.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Olivia Dennison

    Reason for Decision:

    The Opposition successfully refuted the claims made by the Affirmative side; specifically opposition negotiated "turn" on "oldest question" ("is there life out there?") and used it to her advantage. The Opposition was more responsive in rebuttal and closing speeches and created clash.


    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