Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United Nations should adopt a resolution decrying or demanding an end to the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan.
 Reva Agashe |
vs.
|
 Illiah Pfau |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 22, 2014 12:21:47AM EST by Reva Agashe
http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/UNEP.Guidelines.on.Compliance.MEA.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.
http://www.opsociety.org/issues/mercury-in-seafood
http://www.seashepherd.org/cove-guardians/facts.html
http://www.wspa-international.org/Images/159_the_case_against_marine_mammals_in_captivity_english_2009_tcm25-8409.pdf#false
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 26, 2014 11:50:35AM EST by David Kane
| Category | Reva Agashe | Illiah Pfau |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 2.8 | 2 |
| Delivery skill: | 3.2 | 2.8 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 3.2 | 2.8 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 3 | 2.5 |
| Identification of key points: | 3.6 | 3 |
| Comments: | Be careful about introducing new evidence and arguments in your closing speech. It didn't make a difference in the outcome of the debate, but brining up Kyoto at the end was not good, because your opponent does not have a chance to argue the merits or relevance of the assertion. You are fortunate that your opponent did not exploit some of the inconsistencies in the case. You expected as an outcome reduced mercury emissions. Assuming that happens, how does that apply to the case? When laying out your case be careful about telling the judge what he or she "has to do" |
You didn't exploit some of the inconsistencies in the case. She expected as an outcome reduced mercury emissions. Assuming that happens, how does that apply to the case? I'm certainly open to arguments based on logic without additional evidence, but you made a number of assertions without substantiating them one way or the other. E.g. your position that there are better agencies than the UN would have been better with an example. The assertion that the goal of the UN is to avoid conflict would have been stronger if you had quoted the relevant passage of the UN charter, etc. I did like the direction took when you made the comparison to domestic animals killed for food consumption, but it would have been more effective if you had raised it earlier. E.g. you didn't have the opportunity to say cows have families too :+) Or maybe discuss bull castration, etc. One nit that came up in the end, the resolution does say "hunt" not "slaughter" so her point about dolphins captured was relevant. If you had some evidence that this particular hunt is only for food and not live capture, I would have considered the point. |
The decision is for the Proposition: Reva Agashe
Reason for Decision:
The proposition held up during the debate. The negative suggested there were better options, but didn't provide them. There was some clash around the appropriate scope of the plan, but not enough to undermine the plan in the first place. There negative didn't provide enough to sufficient question the topicality of live capture part of the affirmative case.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
