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: Berenice Garcia (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Brennan Young (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: Aloysius Chan (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.

  • Berenice  Garcia
    Berenice Garcia

    Brennan Young
    Brennan Young
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2014 02:04:01AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2014 10:01:20PM 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]

    Bearden, 02
    (The Unnecessary Energy Crisis, Free Republic, 6-24.)

    Posted at April 24, 2014 01:19:22PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 12:18:49PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 26, 2014 01:00:23PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2014 10:04:45AM EST by Aloysius Chan

    Category Berenice Garcia Brennan Young
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 2.5 2.5
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.8 3.2
    Identification of key points: 2.8 3.2
    Comments: On a stylistic note, your delivery could be made much stronger through the use of a more confident, assertive tone that helps to persuade and demonstrate the impact of the points you are attempting to deliver. Try to engage with the audience through public speaking, rather than merely reading off a script.

    For your constructive matter, you presented some very salient and compelling contentions, but did not adequately explain the causal links within each point of substantiation, merely asserting the arguments. A more explicit link to the motion, regarding how a UN policy to end the dolphin hunt would resolve all of the problems stated, would be useful.

    As for your rebuttals, they were insufficient in scope and detail to deconstruct the argumentation forwarded by Opposition, and the defenses to your own arguments did not directly clash with what Opposition was attempting to push.
    In terms of the category of delivery skill, the speed at which you rush through your points seriously compromises the coherence and persuasiveness of your argumentation - please consider slowing down for future rounds, and try to emphasize emotive and stylistic aspects.

    As for the arguments themselves, ideas presented were generally relevant to the motion, where you challenged the suitability of the UN as the agent to enact this policy. However, the "anthropocentric" angle was somewhat unconvincing, and did not take down the characterization from Proposition of humane treatment.

    Nevertheless, your other rebuttals, correctly pointed out the deficiencies in Proposition's case. Do note that some of your points, like economic collapse, sound mildly exaggerated, but I did not discredit you since Proposition did not flag it out.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Brennan Young

    Reason for Decision:

    This debate was decided on two general aspects
    - Case construction
    - Responsiveness

    On the first aspect of case construction, Proposition forwarded several very relevant ideas in the debate, such as the humane treatment for dolphins that needed to be achieved. However, that these were stated without adequate elaboration made it difficult for me as a judge to credit the argumentation, and indeed opened it up to attack by Opposition. Conversely, Opposition was able to show more direct logical links as to how their stated harms would come to pass.

    On the second point of responsiveness, Proposition was unable to sufficiently defend the constructive case from Opposition's rebuttals, allowing Opposition side to capitalize on these shortcomings and take down the argument. Opposition, meanwhile, was able to show better case evolution, by expanding the scope of the argumentation and evidence used, and highlight key areas of contention that they were able to win on.

    The debate hence went to the Opposition.

    1 Comment

    Thank you for my judge for judging and thank you to my opponent for a great round and congratulations on the win. - Berenice Garcia on April 28, 2014 at 11:48AM 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: