Judge: Adam R. Lee (Unaffiliated)
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 20, 2014 08:44:24PM EST by Chase Hutchinson
Dicke, Ursula, and Gerard Roth. "Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind." Scientific American. N.p., 28 Aug. 2008. Web. <http://theformerfundie.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/animal-intelligence-and-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind_-scientific-american.pdf>.
Palmer, Mark J. "Taiji Dolphin Drive Hunt Is Not a Tradition | Ric O'Barry's Dolphin Project." Blog: Taiji Dolphin Drive Hunt Is Not a Tradition | Ric O'Barry's Dolphin Project. Earth Island Media Release, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. <http://dolphinproject.org/blog/post/taiji-dolphin-drive-hunt-is-not-a-tradition>.
Messenger, Stephen. "Japan's Dolphin Hunt Likely Violates Japanese Law." N.p., 27 Jan. 2014. Web. <https://www.thedodo.com/japans-dolphin-hunt-violates-j-405656477.html>.
Sacirbey, Ambassador Muhamed. "Is Animal Rights the Next Human Rights?" The Huffington Post. N.p., 09 Jan. 2014. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ambassador-muhamed-sacirbey/is-animal-rights-the-next_b_4568717.html>.
Zhou, Kelly. "Mercury Poisoning From Dolphin Meat Remains a Major Concern for 'Cove' Activists." TakePart, 27 Aug. 2012. Web. <http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/08/26/mercury-poisoning-dolphin-meat-remains-key-issue-environmentalists>.
Posted at April 23, 2014 12:53:16AM EST by joshua chung
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 23, 2014 08:54:25PM EST by Chase Hutchinson
Japan is going cut back on its whaling program after UN action showing that a resolution has the potential to be effective:
Neuman, Scott. "Japan Says It Will Temporarily Scale Back Whale Hunt." KPBS Public Broadcasting. NPR, 18A Apr. 2014. Web. <http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/apr/18/japan-says-it-will-temporarily-scale-back-whale/>.
Posted at April 25, 2014 12:56:07AM EST by joshua chung
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 25, 2014 12:58:56PM EST by Chase Hutchinson
Round I referenced where my opponent goes a total of 25 seconds over time: http://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Rounds/26/Match/328/binghamton-university-s-2nd-annual-online-debate-tournament/round-1/joshua-chung-vs-connor-hayes/
I apologize for any audio troubles you may experience with viewing this last speech. The audio didn't synch up right when I posted it, but I can send you the video file itself if you have any troubles.
Thank you to my judge and opponent for a great round.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 26, 2014 01:10:04PM EST by Adam R. Lee
|Category||Chase Hutchinson||joshua chung|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||2|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4|
|Identification of key points:||3||3|
|Comments:||Good work, excellent decision forfeiting the 8 seconds at the beginning of your second speech to neutralize the time argument. You would have benefitted from a bit more time on the Counterplan and explaining a justification for the resolution letting you have the UN, both demand and decry.||Fewer, more developed and focused arguments would help you. You are on track, you just need to think out more what your overall negative strategy is, and what you want to be going for at the end of the debate.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Chase Hutchinson
Reason for Decision:
This is a very close debate that I had some difficulty resolving.
1. The eight seconds over issue, I am sympathetic to Joshua's arguments that the best way to create order is to impose a loss, however, Chase's argument that his forfeiture of 8 seconds in his second speech is a punishment more befitting the crime is good, and I don't think that Joshua ever comes to terms to the fact, in his arguments, that this solves any competitive equity issues. Ultimately, I decide that the forfeiture of 8 seconds resolves any issues with competitive equity, and therefore am not sure why I would use an automatic loss. If the runner who has started 8 seconds early stops to let the runner who has started 8 seconds late catch up, what's the harm of the 8 second start?
2. Is this a policy debate? I think the question is a red-herring. I am compelled by Chase's argument that the resolution already comprises a plan, the time frame of which is implicitly immediate and the actor is already imposed by the resolution. I think Joshua, you would have been better served by arguing that the resolution's use of the word "or" is disjunctive and therefore it is unfair to you that he has decided both to decry and demand. This would be more of a topicality argument that could be developed if focused on and could be compelling. For instance you could argue that the resolution requires that the Proposition side must choose to decry or demand, and that the opposition's counterplan ground is necessarily the other side of that choice. I think your argument is harmed by arguing ancillary arguments, like the time frame argument and the actor argument, such that you lose the forest for the trees and miss your better argument. Furthermore, you don't do this impact work. What do you lose by him not providing that plan? You say "stock issue," I was a policy debater in high school and in college, I have coached it and judged it for nearly 20 years, nevertheless, you need to develop your "stock issue" argument beyond the tagline to get me to vote for you on this. I am not saying you are on the wrong track, you just need to hone and develop it more.
3. Counterplan, very close debate that could have been better developed on both sides, and frankly Joshua I think you devote too much time to arguing your more procedural arguments at a loss for this substantive one. I vote for the perm because, in the end, there is not a net benefit to doing the counterplan alone. Joshua's best argument for one is that you have to fix your own house before fixing Japan. There is never an argument as to why you can't do both at the same time, except for the claim of a solvency deficit because Japan won't listen. Joshua never responds to Chase's argument that recent whaling issues empirically disprove that Japan won't abide, plus the bulk of the logic of Joshua's argument is beaten back by the fact that the Counterplan would be simultaneous with Plan. Further, the Counterplan would not solve for any of the conceded contentions for which the Plan solves.
I vote for the Proposition, this is a solid debate, Joshua would have benefitted by focusing his arguments more and better developing one rather than the several he keeps going throughout the debate.
Good Luck in future rounds.