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: Will Villano (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Tanaka Hideyuki (Shorin Global)

Judge: Dan Weiser (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Will Villano
    Will Villano
    vs.



    Tanaka Hideyuki
    Tanaka Hideyuki
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 11, 2016 10:11:25PM EST by Will Villano

    Citations

    Show

    1. Tarshis, Lauren. "Yes, Aliens (Probably) Exist." Scholastic (2015).
    Lauren Tarshis is an author and a contributor to Scholastic. Her article contains quotes from Kevin Hand, deputy chief scientist at NASA.

    2. Stephen Hawking's comments regarding aliens:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/stephen-hawking-alien-contact-risky/story?id=10478157
    Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge.

    3. Bosselman, Fred. “The Influence of Ecological Science on American Law: An Introduction.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 69.4 (1994): 847-73.
    Fred Bosselman was a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law.

    4. Ronald Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative:
    http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/SDI-StarWars.asp

    5. Ghoshroy, Subrata. "The X-37B: Backdoor Weaponization Of Space?." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 71.3 (2015): 19-29. Academic Search Complete.
    Subrata Ghoshroy is a research affiliate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Program in Science, Technology, and Society. Before that, he was for many years a senior engineer in the field of high-energy lasers.

    6. Outer Space Treaty:
    http://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

    7. Marshall, Alan. "Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment." Journal of Applied Philosophy 10.2 (1993): 227-36. John Wiley & Sons.
    Alan Marshall is a professor at Massey University.

    8. Race, Margaret. "The Need For Operating Guidelines to the Discovery of Non-Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life." Advances in Space Research 30.6 (2002): 1583-591. SETI Institute.
    Margaret Race is a senior research scientist for the SETI (Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute.

    9. Williamson, Mark. "Space Ethics and Protection of the Space Environment." Space Policy 19 (2003): 47-52. Science Direct.
    Mark Williamson is a Space Technology Consultant, physicist, engineer, and editorial director of Earth Space Review magazine.

    Posted at April 12, 2016 08:32:53AM EST by Tanaka Hideyuki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2016 12:57:26AM EST by Will Villano

    Citations

    Show

    Race, Margaret. "The Need For Operating Guidelines to the Discovery of Non-Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life." Advances in Space Research 30.6 (2002): 1583-591. SETI Institute.
    Margaret Race is a senior research scientist for the SETI (Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute.

    Wikipedia used solely for general information:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

    Posted at April 14, 2016 07:59:13AM EST by Tanaka Hideyuki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2016 11:08:43PM EST by Will Villano

    Citations

    Show

    See "Proposition Constructive" and "Proposition Rebuttal".

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 16, 2016 06:54:24PM EST by Dan Weiser

    Category Will Villano Tanaka Hideyuki
    Use of evidence: 4.5 2.4
    Delivery skill: 3.7 2.2
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 3.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.2 4.2
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Nice job. It seems like you have a lot of raw debate talent. However you made this debate much harder to judge than it needed to be. This format allows for pretty short speeches. You clearly went for the "spread" option of putting out a whole bunch of arguments and seeing what sticks throughout the debate. This is "ok" but with such limited time it felt like the arguments never really got developed. You had a GREAT opportunity in your final speech to finally pick an argument to go for and really hammer away. Unfortunately you simple restated the tag line of the argument several times without even a single breath of elaboration in terms of explaining the argument in more detail. Doing some impact analysis or telling me why this is worth voting on. With the spread technique you need to hammer away hard at the end and take the time to go for something clearly and really develop it when you go for it. Here. I think you fell very short and ultimately left me feeling like i needed a lot more. You went for so much I never just got a clear simple coherent picture of what voting for you means. Great job. I am going to take a guess and say English is not your first language! I applaud your abaulity you debate under those circumstances. However you do have to take that into account. I had a very hard time figuring out what you were saying a lot of the time. I had to re watch your sperches multiple times and, quite honestly I don't want to have to do that! My suggestion would be to talk slower, really focus on being clear, and make use of visuals to highlight main points similar to the way your opponent did. Aside from delivery I think you had good well constructed arguments.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Tanaka Hideyuki

    Reason for Decision:

    This debate was difficult to judge. I had to rewatch speeches from both of you several times. While it seemed like Will may win for part of the debate the final speech fell totally flat to me. I needed to rewatch the first speech just to figure out what the logic was behind the arguments he went for. Quite honestly I simply agree with Tanaka that the militarization stuff was just irrelevant in the context of this debate. I'm not sure how this ethical obligation stops space militarization or decreases war in general. Given this is not flushed out or clear to me in any way i have no real motivating reason at the end of te debate to create some nee moral obligation on the human race. I vote for Tanaka in agreement with his point that we should continue to explore and then make policy and laws specific to what we eventually find out there. Best of luck to both of you!


    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