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: Lidija Jurovich (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Ee Hsiun Chong (Unaffiliated)

Judge: Jamie Saker (Westside High School (Omaha NE))

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

  • Lidija Jurovich
    Lidija Jurovich

    Ee Hsiun Chong
    Ee Hsiun Chong
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2014 02:56:45PM EST by Lidija Jurovich



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2014 10:15:31AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong



    (2014). Asia Military Tensions Addressed at Regional Naval Forum. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Japan and China step up drone race as tension builds over disputed islands | World news | The Guardian. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Japan opposition leader calls prime minister Shinzo Abe 'revisionist' | South China Morning Post. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Japan Whaling Assoc. -History of Whaling-. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Mr. Abe's Dangerous Revisionism - Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Shinzo Abes Nationalist Strategy | The Diplomat. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    (2014). Tensions Set To Rise In The South China Sea | The Diplomat. Retrieved 4/22/2014, from

    Posted at April 23, 2014 07:22:24PM EST by Lidija Jurovich



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2014 11:47:06AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong



    (2014). Basics - In Pig Cognition Studies, Reflections on Parallels With Humans - Retrieved 4/24/2014, from

    (2014). Japans PM Abe defends Taiji dolphin hunt, cites culture and tradition - The Japan Daily Press. Retrieved 4/24/2014, from

    (2014). Japan's funding to U.N. falls to 10%, half of peak | The Japan Times. Retrieved 4/24/2014, from

    Posted at April 25, 2014 03:13:48PM EST by Lidija Jurovich



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2014 08:53:36PM EST by Jamie Saker

    Category Lidija Jurovich Ee Hsiun Chong
    Use of evidence: 5 5.6
    Delivery skill: 5.9 6
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.4 5.2
    Identification of key points: 5.8 5.3
    Comments: Lidija,

    Good case construction and choice of arguments. I'd recommend you move from asking questions (which is a defensive argument) to making statements (which is much more offensive) in your rebuttals. For instance, you answered one of your opponents arguments with a question "How is that part of nature..." or another one in your 2AR "How is feeding dolphin meat to is that culturally right?" You want to be making these as declarative arguments rather than leaving open as questions.

    As I mention to Ee as well, I'd like more weighing of value systems as in the quite common "morality vs. utilitarianism" debates like we have here, I need to understand why I should weigh your morality over his utilitarian analysis (e.g. the Japan militarization which could go into a war).

    I understand these time limits are horribly short and make such analysis very difficult (in fact, I'm recommending to Bing's coaches that they adopt LD times which would give you about 2 more minutes to really get into this kind of weighing and meta-debate if you need to). For these rounds, you just need to make this morality > util very quickly and perhaps give a single warrant as to why that should be. You probably should put that in the first speech/constructive so you can extend it in the round and apply it to clash.

    Good clash and engagement with your opponents arguments. What would be a place to develop further is weighing arguments for the judge more. For instance, we have a bit of a classic "morality vs. utility" debate that is developing in this round and you have more of a utilitarian argument and impact on the Japan militarization disadvantage to the affirmative proposition.

    What needs to happen is the weighing I mention in my comments to the aff. Your util. impact on the DA flow goes unaddressed by the Aff until the 2AR so I give this full weight but we really should be arguing why the util impact outweighs the morality/deontology.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Ee Hsiun Chong

    Reason for Decision:

    Thank you to both of you for a fine round! You both gave solid arguments and had well reasoned cases.

    My judging and decision is reflective of my experience and perspective as a policy and Lincoln-Douglas coach and judge. I tend to look at the line-by-line debate, and also look at aesthetic meaning production when the opportunity is there to do so. In this round, both debaters engaged a traditional debate that set up between the morality of the aff's position and the utilitarian impacts of the neg's.

    As mentioned above, we'd normally want to see both debaters get to this "meta" of why morality or utilitarianism perspectives/frameworks are more important. Whomever controls this meta-debate is usually in a strong position to influence how the judge then applies that perspective and framework to evaluate what impacts truly matter or not.

    Because this wasn't really debated (and I understand, it's quite hard given these short speech times), I had to treat both systems as functionally equal in weight (which is sort of difficult) and deferred to the technical execution of the debate. E.g., who did the better job technically advancing their arguments and confronting/challenging/clashing with their opponents?

    On this basis, I vote Neg:

    1. The extended Japan Militarization disadvantage that goes unaddressed by the affirmative until the final speech. "Dropped" arguments in a speech are normally evaluated as full impact and true by judges in the line-by-line model. We do this in this debate, for example, because it wouldn't be fair for the Aff to ignore the NC argument in the 1AR, the NR comes up and extends it, and then the 2AR has a bunch of new answers which the Neg cannot respond to given there are no more Neg Rebuttals.

    2. Neg Impacts their arguments better: When we speak about 'impacting' an argument, this means we take our claim and our warrant and make it mean something to the debate. A good way to think of this is to ask yourself on each part of the flow: "So What?!!"

    An example:
    Claim> Neg claims UN intervention would disrupt Japan culture.
    Warrant> Neg either reads a card or makes an analytical observation.

    So what if Japan culture is disrupted? Maybe it is bad culture! Aff makes a very limited version of this argument; this should be given 100x more emphasis. Don't be afraid to take a stand and say "We tell cultures that treat women poorly that we're not going to stand back and let them do that!" In fact, there are good Patterson cards that link the mistreatment of animals to the abuse of women in cultures. (the work is Eternal Treblinka... email me at if you're interested in the card).

    Both debaters can really take these CLAIMS and WARRANTS further into powerful offense via the IMPACT to the arguments. "(So what???) Disrupt their culture? Well we NEED to since it's a violent culture to animals and Patterson says that this is the root cause in culture for violence committed against women." That'd be a great Aff impact. Or the Neg linking this further into the "(So what???) Disrupting Japan culture through internationalist imperialism via the UN only accelerates right-wing backlash. This leads to further militarization, that's my B point on the second Neg contention, and that leads to aggression and war with China, that's my C point. The death of humans and animals from such a regional war far outweighs a few dolphins saved."

    Good luck to both of you and thank you for sharing the opportunity for me to judge the round. Cheers from the central United States (writing this from the state of Iowa, in the middle of the US).


    Thank you for the round Ee, it was really enjoyable. And thanks for judging Jamie. - Lidija Jurovich on April 30, 2014 at 11:06AM EST
    And update per the last comment, that was really from me (Jamie). My daughter who is also debating had her account still logged in and I didn't notice it. Sorry for any confusion!

    Jamie - Jamie Saker on April 26, 2014 at 11:06PM EST
    Thank you Ee Hsiun! Best wishes to you both in your future debates. - Lily Saker on April 26, 2014 at 11:01PM EST
    Jamie and Lidija, thank you very much for the debate. It was very insightful both skills and content-wise. I especially appreciate the lessons on the meta-debate on principles.

    Thank you once again! Good luck to Lidija and I wish you more enjoyable rounds Jamie! - Ee Hsiun Chong on April 26, 2014 at 10:29PM 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: