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: Brennan Young (Winston Churchill High School) vs. Opposition: Anthony Pina (Wood River High School)

Judge: Abigail Wong (Anglo-Chinese Junior College)

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

  • Brennan Young
    Brennan Young

    Anthony  Pina
    Anthony Pina
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 09:02:49PM EST by Brennan Young



    Mulligan 10
    Shane Mulligan. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. November 2010. Energy, Environment, and Security: Critical Links in a Post-Peak World. Global Environmental Politics 10:4. Pages 86-88.

    Lintott 11
    Sheila Lintott. Fall 2011. Preservation, Passivity, and Pessimism. Ethics & the Environment. 16:2. Pages 104-106.

    Grey 1993
    William Grey, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Queensland, 1993
    [Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475]

    Smiley '11
    [David M. Adjunct Assistant Professor of Political Science Portland State Univ. B.S. Political Science and Anthropology 1976, Portland State University; M.A. Political Science 1978, J.D. Law, 1980, Columbia University.The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World (1990) Some Preliminary Comments in The great new wilderness debate By J. Baird Callicott, Michael P. Nelson] [ct] [Page/s 257]

    Post, in 13.

    Posted at April 23, 2014 12:53:45AM EST by Anthony Pina



    Posted at April 23, 2014 11:01:44PM EST by Brennan Young



    Palmer in 14. C. by graduate students in the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University and Constance L. a graduate student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn,

    Ottenheimer in 14. Assistant Prof of Sociology @ U of Brock, Road Kill: Commodity Fetishism and Structural Violence in Critical Theory and Animal Liberation, copyright 2011, Rowman and Littlefields Publishers Inc., pages 68-69)//SK

    All other extended card citations may be found off of my previous speech's citations.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 12:54:34AM EST by Anthony Pina



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 26, 2014 01:11:00AM EST by Brennan Young



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 10:50:07AM EST by Abigail Wong

    Category Brennan Young Anthony Pina
    Use of evidence: 3 2.6
    Delivery skill: 2.3 2.8
    Coherence of arguments: 2.7 2.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.4 2.5
    Identification of key points: 3.5 2.4
    Comments: Constructive: Please speak slower to make yourself sounds clearer. Your argumentation is off tangent, the motion is not about reVolutions but reSolutions. Your subs need to make the link about how hunting Taiji dolphins will result in the extinction of the dolphins, this can be done by quoting examples and statistics about the number of dolphins which die in the hunt. Your substantives could possibly also focus on the cruel, inhumanity that comes from hunting dolphins, citing examples and characterizing how these hunts are conducted.

    Rebuttal: there is an inherent concession in your speech that the Taiji dolphin hunt is part of culture and "history", what you should try to prove is how the protection of the lives of these dolphins outstrips that of culture by illustrating the importance of safeguarding this species and the possibility for cultures to continually evolve or even showing how some abhorrent and inhumane cultures have to evolve. Your second rebuttal does not target the logic that your side wants to protect all sentient beings and would therefore not kills animals for food. Instead of just negating this, you should try to show the difference between the practices of slaughtering animals and the Taiji dolphin hunt or show the importance of saving an almost extinct animal population etc. Good in pointing out the strategic flaws of side opposition.

    Closing: good pointing out assertions and the problems in proposition case. Good flipping the examples of opposition. Explain which point he dropped, please do not try to teach the adjudicator how to judge. Please impact your argumentation, extend your rebuttals and show how on different angles and different actors, you can still win.
    Constructive: Your first substantive should be more hinged around the motion and the nuances of it, such as addressing the fact that this resolution is directed at Taiji alone despite dolphin hunting happening across the world such as in Peru and Iceland. Your second substantive cannot just say that the UN's action is ineffective but should try to prove how it exacerbates the situation to make side proposition's stance seem more abhorrent. Furthermore, your reply to proposition's substantive material is lacking.

    Rebuttal: Your arguments should not be hung around your examples. You should further try to show how important the Taiji dolphin hunt is for the sustenance of the individual, building on the logic you have already provided about how humans have continually exploited nature. This makes your rebuttals more palatable because it addresses the core idea of the motion and shows how you protect what is socially considered to be a more important group; humans. Your rebuttal to culture is tangential and does not target the key logic of his point which is that culture is not as important as dolphin lives and does not hold that important a place in Japanese culture. The alternative body to handle the dolphin issue should have been brought up in your constructive case and it should show why the UN is so flawed and will cause the dolphin hunting situation to worsen and why your alternative organisation is so much more preferable.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Brennan Young

    Reason for Decision:

    Responsiveness from side Opposition was lacking, which caused them to use hypotheticals to argue their case upon, which harmed the cogency and prevented it from being truly compelling. Side proposition was able to engage with side opposition on most of their grounds however dropped the argument on the alternative organisations which could help prevent dolphin hunting, while this admittedly was a late response, it would have been more beneficial to deal with all issues brought up in the debate. Argument extension is another issue which both speakers should improve on, however more so on opposition than on proposition.

    1 Comment

    I want to thank my judge Abigail Wong for judging the rounds and giving both me and Brennan lots of feedback. Also want to thank my opponent Brennan Young for a good debate. This was a fun experience. - Anthony Pina on April 28, 2014 at 03:06PM 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: