Judge: jamie mckown (College of the Atlantic )
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 11:54:03AM EST by Connor Hayes
Posted at April 23, 2014 12:10:31AM EST by Harley Norton
UNESCO World Heritage Center 1992-2014 Web. Apr. 22 http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/
Posted at April 23, 2014 04:53:47PM EST by Connor Hayes
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 25, 2014 01:31:47AM EST by Harley Norton
U.N. Court Orders Japan to Hault Whale Hunt, Saeed Ahmed http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/31/world/asia/japan-whale-hunt/index.html?iref=allsearch
Eco-Terrorism and Piracy on the High Seas: Japanese Whaling and the Rights of Private Groups to Enforce International Conservation Law in Neutral Waters; Roeschke, Joseph Elliott http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/vilenvlj20&div=9&id=&page=
Posted at April 25, 2014 08:45:47PM EST by Connor Hayes
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 27, 2014 08:19:07PM EST by jamie mckown
|Category||Connor Hayes||Harley Norton|
|Use of evidence:||2.1||2.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.5||2.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.7||3.6|
|Identification of key points:||3.7||3.6|
|Comments:||You get too sucked into the line by line at the cost of actually weighing the args. This is a short format. you cant simply win by going line by line. you need to take a moment to ID the main claims and weigh them.||I would try to find a quieter space for your speeches. That last speech was really tough to hear from all the outside noise. Also, make sure to give the big picture of the debate .. what is the #1 reason to vote neg. I get that from you more in the 1n than in the 2n. It is still just as relevant in the 2nd speech|
The decision is for the Opposition: Harley Norton
Reason for Decision:
To be honest, this is a fairly messy debate. The aff spends more time on the line by line, and while the neg seems to have the better args, I am not sure which is the most important. There isnt a great deal of weighing going on. It seems that the neg comes down to 2 main positions.. first, that there is no reason to believe that UN involvement will solve the problem and may make the situation worse.. and second that the UN doing so would run counter to the UNESCO convention on cultural heritage. As for the latter, the debate on this is so entirely muddled that I dont think there is a clear winner. Both the last aff and neg speeches get tangled in the line by line and seem to forget that this is their closing speech.. so I am not sure what to make of the basic fundamental question. In addition, I am not sure of the impact anyway, since the 2n doesnt really give me a sense of "so what" -- even if I do conclude that the actions run counter to the unesco principles. As for the first issue.. whether un action solves anything.. the neg makes the point (though it is buried in both of her speeches) that the aff never proves that UN action would solve the problem.. and that is the aff burden. The aff doesnt have a good answer to this. The 2a briefly suggests that the UN could use economic sanctions, but then doesnt mention that again. The aff also cites the whaling example.. which is odd because in the 2a this is an example in which the UN has tried for years (as the aff puts it) to get the japanese to change.. to no avail. How does this prove solvency? I realize that the invite doesnt require evidence to be read in the debate. Thats fine. However, I think thats a bit different than having concrete examples that can be invoked as empirical evidence. The aff needs to seriously find good examples it can invoke since the topic is NOT about whether the hunts or good or bad.. but rather if the UN should condemn them. By the way.. as a side note.. you should know that the Japanese have basically said that they will ignore the ICJ ruling on the Japanese whaling practice.. which proves the neg point (even though thats not in this round.. and thus not relevant).