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: Richard Chen (Cornell University) vs. Opposition: Kyle Nelson (Wood River High School)

Judge: Erin Meehan (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: RESOLVED: The United Nations should adopt a resolution decrying or demanding an end to the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan.

  • Richard Chen
    Richard Chen

    Kyle  Nelson
    Kyle Nelson
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 06:20:27PM EST by Richard Chen



    Dolphin Slaughter In Taiji. (2010, June 12). In Oceanic Preservation Society. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

    Brasor, P. (2014, February 22). Japan takes baby steps toward a proper debate about animal rights. In The Japan Times. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

    Japan Campaign. (2013, October 23). In Dolphin Project. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

    Dawn, K. (2014, March). Is Japan's Dolphin Slaughter Really for Food?. In The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

    Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare. (2012, September 2). In WSPA International. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

    Dolphin meat causing dangerous mercury levels in Japanese diners. (2010, May 9). In The Guardian. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

    Posted at April 22, 2014 10:24:33PM EST by Kyle Nelson




    Posted at April 24, 2014 12:01:13AM EST by Richard Chen



    UN action against whale hunts:

    Ahmed, S. (2014, March 31). U.N. court orders Japan to halt whale hunt. In CNN World. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from

    Dolphin hunting is not a cultural tradition:

    Palmer, M. (n.d.). TAIJI DOLPHIN DRIVE HUNT IS NOT A TRADITION. In Dolphin Project. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from

    Posted at April 24, 2014 09:26:47PM EST by Kyle Nelson



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 26, 2014 12:53:45AM EST by Richard Chen



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2014 10:41:55PM EST by Erin Meehan

    Category Richard Chen Kyle Nelson
    Use of evidence: 3 1.8
    Delivery skill: 4.5 1.8
    Coherence of arguments: 3 1.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 1.8
    Identification of key points: 4.4 1.9
    Comments: Richard - while I am not sure I think you have the strongest arguments for the proposition - your case is clearly defined and your delivery extremely articulate and convincing.

    I read your cited materials and think there are better ways to piece those materials together at the outset but I trust that you can figure out a better story.
    Kyle - while I accept this is an online forum - were you actually laying on a couch or bed while delivering your rebuttal? These subtleties really affect your believability and desire to be a winner.

    In your opening speech - I suggest you make your case first and use your case to not only strengthen the opposition side but also as arguments against your opponents presentation. While you started out with some decent arguments against his premise you didn't tie it all together for me.

    Delivery needs some improvement - I just didn't get that you showed up to compete or win this match.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Richard Chen

    Reason for Decision:

    While I do not believe that the proposition has the strongest case, in this match he set the stage and it really did not get refuted succinctly. The downfall really came during the oppositions rebuttal and closing which was weak and left many of the propositions arguments completely untouched. This round was decided at that point.


    Thank you Anna for your suggestions they're really helpful! - Richard Chen on April 30, 2014 at 08:14PM EST
    Hello! I wanted to just make my own decision, tips and suggestions for this round. If I were to judge this debate, this is what I would say.

    Richard: Proposition
    Evidence: 5.5
    Delivery: 5
    Coherence: 6
    Responsiveness: 5
    Key Points: 6

    Kyle: Opposition
    Evidence: 1.5
    Delivery: 3.5
    Coherence: 3
    Responsiveness: 3.5
    Key Points: 3.5

    Decision: If I were judging, I would vote proposition on this topic.

    Here is the reason for my decision:

    Okay, so this debate was a really good debate with lots of positive things happening on both sides. I found this debate easy to follow and I could see effort and enthusiasm from both Kyle and from Richard. So, proposition first.
    Richard, I found your speaking to be quite delightful and very pleasing to hear. You speak very fluidly and this helped with the delivery of your arguments. You did a great job maintaining eye contact with the judge. Your argument was very well put together and I appreciated that you first outlined your argument at the beginning of arguments so that it was easier to follow throughout each of them. You used your sources very well and you were very much able to manipulate them so that they worked for each of your arguments. It was also good that you addressed the two main parts of the argument: 1.) Why dolphin hunting is bad and 2.) Why it is important that the United Nations take action. You also responded very well to your opponent and were able to back up your original claims well. If I had any critiques to give you, it would be to watch out for your time limits. You went over the 30 second grace period which could have definitely cost you the argument had you had a strict judge. Also, dont attack the speaker, attack the argument. There were a few times that you attacked Kyle; try not to do that because it is mean. Now the opposition. Kyle, you did a really good job as well. You did a decent job responding to your opponents arguments and explaining why your argument was better. However, your argument would have been so much stronger had you used specific sources and cited them! It is hard for a judge to see if your evidence holds truth or not if you dont post any sources. That was one of the reasons why I voted prop. Also, there were times where you stated facts that clearly came from sources that you didnt cite; make sure you cite them! One of the ways you could have won your argument was to take 30 seconds to point out that your opponent went over the time limit and grace period. If you backed up that argument and stated that you should have won because going over the time limit is unfair and can lead to the speaker talking for longer and longer amounts of time each argument (even though you didnt), thats a procedural argument that you could have one this debate by! Just food for thought! Good job to both of you!
    I voted proposition because the proposition used good sources, cited them all, was very specific with his plan of action and overall was a strong debater during this debate.

    Thanks for your time, guys! Good luck to you both in future debates and we hope you enjoyed Binghamton University's Debate tournament!
    - Anna Vattana on April 30, 2014 at 07:15PM EST
    Thanks for judging and the feedback and thanks to my opponent for a good round - Kyle Nelson on April 28, 2014 at 11:45AM EST

    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: