Judge: Dan Weiser (Unaffiliated)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United Nations should adopt a resolution decrying or demanding an end to the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 21, 2014 06:06:42PM EST by Bridget Kernan
"Are Dolphins People, Too?" The Week. N.p., 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://theweek.com/article/index/104684/are-dolphins-people-too%20%20Dolphins%20deserve%20human%20rights.%20That%27s%20the%20statement%20being>.
"DOLPHINS ARE NOT FOOD." Blue Voice. Harvard School of Medical Health, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://bluevoice.org/news_notfood.php>.
Posted at April 23, 2014 04:29:10PM EST by Bridget Kernan
Posted at April 24, 2014 11:41:28PM EST by Brian Cheon
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 25, 2014 05:04:22PM EST by Bridget Kernan
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 27, 2014 08:51:10AM EST by Dan Weiser
|Category||Bridget Kernan||Brian Cheon|
|Use of evidence:||3||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||2.6|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||4|
|Comments:||Really nice job creating a compelling case! You made sure to bring the case through the whole debate even when many would get caught up with the opposition arguments and leave the case behind. Just be careful responding to procedural arguments in your first rebuttal. I don't think you gave it enough time considering it was what he based most if his opposition on. Nice work!!||Great job with the procedural debate. You had a very clear and valid contention with the design of the prop case and definitely exceeded my expectations on your final speech with how well you presented your argument. Really well done.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Bridget Kernan
Reason for Decision:
You both should be really proud of this debate! Ultimately I went for the prop for two reasons. The first is that there is no clear mandate for a certain style of debate in this particular competition. It was clear to me from the start that the prop was affirming the resolution. That is to say the world where an action that falls within the resolution happens is a better world. This is fair even in a policy debate because it theoretically gives the opposition side all the ground afforded by the resolution. They are held to defend against pretty much anything because they affirm some action being taken by the resolution. So I agree with the prop framework. My second reason for voting this way is that the opposition didn't not prove any impact to her supposed abusive style of argument. In the last speech you presented a great analysis of why the case was not within the policy framework. Right as you get the the point I am expecting you to tell me about the impact of all this, as in how you were abused by it, you go on to extend the hypocrisy debate which was just not developed enough to be a place I'm going to vote. Now these kind of affirming the resolution arguments can be abusive but you have to prove it and show me how you lost ground by her not giving a specific plan. Next time put out a dis ad to the plan. If she says no link because that's not our plan - that's ground you lost. If you put out a counter plan and she says sure that's an example of what can be done by the proposition plan. That's lost ground. The most important part of a procedural argument is how you lost ground and what impact there is. You have no proof of ground loss and no impact analysis so I can't vote for it. But be careful, the opp argued that case well. Change how you approach it a bit and it can be an easy win!