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: Michael Madsen (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Emmanuel Padron (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Trevor Reddick (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Michael Madsen
    Michael Madsen

    Emmanuel  Padron
    Emmanuel Padron
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 11:37:54AM EST by Michael Madsen



    Viegas, Jennifer. "Dolphins, Humans Share 'Brainy' Genes : DNews."DNews. Discovery Communications, 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

    Palmer, Mark J. "Blog: Taiji Dolphin Drive Hunt Is Not a Tradition |" Blog: Taiji Dolphin Drive Hunt Is Not a Tradition | Save Japan Dolphins, 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

    "Dolphin Meat Obtained In Japan Drive Fisheries: Toxic To Humans." High Levels of Mercury & Toxins in Dolphin Meat. BlueVoice, 2008. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

    Posted at April 23, 2014 05:04:51AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2014 05:13:39PM EST by Michael Madsen



    Invitation for This Tournament-

    Posted at April 25, 2014 03:02:10AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2014 06:09:04PM EST by Michael Madsen



    Thank You for a Great Debate


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 29, 2014 09:32:57AM EST by Trevor Reddick

    Category Michael Madsen Emmanuel Padron
    Use of evidence: 4 4
    Delivery skill: 4.5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: Needed to get down to the nitty gritty on what the distinction was between the affirmative and the negative, your attempt to say that the japanese violence done to the animals is really bad only feeds this hypocrisy argument that there would be no way for them to get out of it if they recognized they were the only ones doing this stuff. However, the truth of that claim and why it's even competitive with your argument is something i'm left wondering at the end of the debate. impacts to topicality are key. by this i mean there are certain values and standards in debate, so for example i would read topicality against someone because their mechanism lays outside of the bounds of the resolution which is bad for ground, because we need a set of argumntation to work from. and ground is key to fairness or education and then explain why those values are important and explain to me why your version of debate is the most important. and if you're going to go for topicality you go all in on topicality because it takes the most time to develop.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Emmanuel Padron

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote that the counterplan does the affirmative better with a net benefit of resolving hypocrisy. The propositon does not do a good job of challenging the competitiveness of the counterplan- ie. why can't we do both of these things at the same time? When faced with a counterplan trying to weigh the impacts of the aff that the counterplan can't access as reasons to vote for you is a good thing and you should deploy it in further debates. Best of luck to you both!

    1 Comment

    Peer Review Class Assignment


    Evidence: 5
    Delivery: 4
    Coherence: 5
    Responsiveness: 6
    Key Points: 5

    Michael. I like your arguments here but you need to clearly define how the UN would specifically take action against the hunt. Just because something is bad does not always mean we should ban it/draft a resolution for it. I agree with your logic, but disagree with your reasoning. Dig a little deeper next time by doing more research on who the UN is and why they do what they do. A key point would be to talk about how the UN, through this policy, will be protecting human rights by stopping the sale of toxic meat to the people of Japan, and should draft a resolution to raise awareness. Next time you should clearly define the main talking points for the topic of argument and expand on them to solidify your case.



    Evidence: 5
    Delivery: 5
    Coherence: 5
    Responsiveness: 6
    Key Points: 6

    Emmanual. Great attention to detail here. Even with the solid arguments made by your opponent, you stuck to your points and fired solid counter-plans that strengthened your argument. Bringing up contradictions in the debate further solidified the your side of the debate and made a tough case for your opponent. I do, however, think you should expand more on your counterplan instead of criticizing and focusing all your time to your opponents arguments.

    Overall I would have to vote in favor of the counterplan (opposition) because of his ability to point out flaws and hypocrisies in the propositions plan. Id also like to see the Proposition slightly modify his plan instead of try and back it up. This only help the prop dig his own grave. After weighing the harms and impacts I vote on the side of the opposition because the logic produced from his arguments disproved a majority of the propositions arguments.
    - Stephen Mincone on April 30, 2014 at 07:32PM 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: