You are a solid speaker, but you should try to make more eye contact and possibly make the paper you are reading from less noticeable (Consider speaking from a podium). I think your second speech was a major improvement stylistically for this reason.
Your first speech does a good job of explaining the impact (Or, the thing I should care about) that stems from violating dolphin rights. I would try developing your Economy and International Backlash arguments further. Caroline Kennedy talked to the media about her disdain of dolphin killing; so what? Make sure to answer the "so what?" question of every argument you make.
I think your final speech is your best. See my notes for the opposition as to why I find the fishing economy argument to be an unpersuasive one.
As someone who considers himself an animal rights advocate, I am not particularly persuaded that killing dolphins for hundreds of years make it alright, nor that the U.N.'s weak stance against eating dogs makes dog killing acceptable. I do think, however, that it would be a good argument to point out the hypocrisy of the U.N. for condemning Japan when many of its member nations, including the U.S., participates in the mass killing of animals themselves, including pigs, who are very intelligent. I think it's problematic that your opponent makes an argument about needing to protect the Japanese fishing market sentences after condemning dolphin killing.
Regardless of the route you take in future debates, always make sure to frame your arguments offensively (As in, the resolution is bad) instead of defensively (The resolution is not good). All of your arguments are highly defensive, which makes it hard for me to vote for you because if you don't provide a reason why the resolution is bad, why not vote for the proposition if there's a chance it can do something good?
I had a really hard time understanding your third contention. I couldn't comprehend some of the words, and the quotation you read was highly dense. You should break down large quotes and do analysis in between so that you can narrate the implication of the article you are reading.
Your first video has some loud noises in the background and cuts off mid-sentence. Not sure what happened there. Your second speech didn't have any of these problems.
Although I think the proposition is winning several of the arguments that the opposition is bringing up, even if he didn't, the opposition has failed to provide a reason why the resolution is bad, only why it is not good. See my discussion of offense vs. defense above. As such, there is a chance (A fairly strong one, I have been persuaded), that the U.N's action would be a net-positive one.
The closest thing to offense the opposition provides is the argument that we shouldn't choose to save a dolphin's life over a humans. Be that as it may, in order for that to be a voting issue, you need to explain why the U.N.'s action would jeopardize a human's life in the first place. Otherwise, the proposition can save both human and dolphin lives, so voting for him provides the best of both worlds.
- Nadya Kaur on March 5, 2021 at 05:02AM EST
Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never stop myself to say something about it. You’re doing a great job Man,Keep it up.
- Nadya Kaur on March 5, 2021 at 05:01AM EST
An interesting discussion is worth comment. I think that you should write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheers International Escorts in Dehradun
First, I feel that both of you could have reinforced your arguments with the use of further evidence regarding the statistics behind the annual dolphin hunt. However, this would have required citations which neither of you had and I suggest you do provide them in the future. Aside from this, it seems that Shaquan did the best job in presenting cold hard facts and statistics that Carlos did not seem to disprove as well because he was responding to it with the use of opinions instead of facts.
Next, both the proposition and the opposition stressed whether or not the hunting and consumption of dolphins should be treated the same way as the consumption of other animals, like dogs, throughout the world. While I think the opposition did a good job in pointing out how the consumption of dolphins is similar to the consumption of other animals in other countries and that both should be treated in the same way, the opposition failed to stress this point in his rebuttal and instead switched from an offensive side to a defensive side. The opposition claims that the proposition failed to have a valid interpretation of his first contention, but as the proposition clearly stated, and touches back on in his closing proposition speech, he points out the disparities between dolphins and dogs. Since this was an important point that the opposition relied on, the decision to side with the proposition on this matter proved to be a major blow in the final decision.
Finally, he opposition points out that the United Nations is flawed and would have no effect on the banning of the Taiji dolphin hunt. However, the opposition fails to explain why the United Nations has been ineffective. The proposition effectively explains, with the use of evidence, how the United Nations has been effective. Because the proposition uses evidence to explain his reasoning of why the United could assist in the banning of the Taiji dolphin hunt, I had to side in favor of the proposition. The opposition could have easily pointed out that he could not investigate the evidence of the proposition due to the lack of citations, but this is something that could be taken advantage of in future debates.
I chose to favor on the side of the proposition. The opposition rested on two major points: 1) that dolphins should bot be made special and should be able to be consumed like other animals, and 2) The United Nations is ineffective. The proposition was able to effectively tackle the arguments made by the opposition who seemed to lack any offense towards the end of the debate.