Judge: Randal Horobik (Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama)
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 29, 2014 12:26:36AM EST by N/A N/A
A full transcript of the speech, including cites, is available in the description of the YouTube video.
Posted at April 29, 2014 07:02:41PM EST by Stephen Mincone
Posted at May 1, 2014 02:47:16AM EST by N/A N/A
A full copy of the 2AC, including citations, is available in the description of the YouTube video.
If the video is at any point unclear, I respectfully request my opponent and judge avail themselves of a written copy for clarification.
Posted at May 1, 2014 09:31:24PM EST by Stephen Mincone
Posted at May 2, 2014 11:21:11PM EST by N/A N/A
A full copy of the speech including citations can be found in the description of the YouTube video.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 3, 2014 09:16:24PM EST by Randal Horobik
|Category||N/A N/A||Stephen Mincone|
|Use of evidence:||5.1||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.4||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||2.5|
|Identification of key points:||5.3||3|
|Comments:||Christian -- props for going the extra mile and not only linking your evidence, but your entire speeches online for me (and the rest of the 'Net). Very appreciated. Should you advance, my suggestion would be to keep a clear mind of the nuanced differences between US style policy debate (don't think I'm going on a limb here assuming you have a policy/CX background) and public debate. Consider kicking the rate of delivery back a gear to get a more conversational tone. Good blend of evidence and analysis. Oh, one thing, the Framework in the AC and subsequent rebuttals refers to Butler evidence, but I'm not seeing a card tagged Butler specifically. I assume it was the basis for the framework in Contention 4.||Stephen -- thank you for clearly staking out a position and holding to it throughout the debate and also for clearly identifying where you thought you had won the debate. My biggest suggestion here is to clash more across the breadth of the debate. Having a central point is good, but as the adage goes, don't throw all your eggs in one basket. Have a Plan B out there for yourself.|
The decision is for the Proposition: N/A N/A
Reason for Decision:
Great debate and thank you for it gentlemen. You both made it clear that you were taking me into account as your judge as you mapped strategy and debated. It was appreciated. You also both got my name right, which is both appreciated and a rarity...heck, I should be offering to buy you dinner or something!
This round largely comes down to framework. For argument/evaluation's sake, let's suppose I grant (for the time being) that Opp's position that the UN has a duty to protect the cultural and national heritage of nations as he spells out in his rebuttal voter constitutes a competing framework, which I think is how he intended for it to be viewed (FYI Stephen, if you advance and maintain this position, you might want to look into the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights to go with your UNESCO stuff, it might augment your position). Does that, taken at full value, pull the rug out from under the entirety of the Prop position? Does it somehow poison the Prop's well to a degree where I have to weigh costs and benefits of the relative sides?
To the first of these questions, I conclude that it does not. The Katz and Oechsli evidence and accompanying explanation catches my eye here. Specifically, I don't think Opp at any element takes out the speciesism layer of assertion coming out of the Prop constructive and carried through via reassertion in rebuttals.
I also agree with Prop that the logical extension of Opp's cultural/national heritage point wasn't fully impacted out. Always remember the key question in a debate or speaking environment -- "why should I (the listener) care?" Be sure to give me that reason to care, and in this case I think that required you to go a step further with your analysis and evidence to telling me what happens if the UN changes course and intrudes upon what you assert is cultural and national heritage.
Without this, there's no counter-consequence to me signing my ballot for the Prop. I can accept his framework on the ethical grounds and know that I'm doing a good thing regardless of whether the resolution works or not. I can take a chance on the Flood '95 evidence that a UN resolution will be effective thanks to Japan's dependence on various foreign markets, etc. This is where Opp's lack of a wider argument base comes back to really hurt when it comes time to adjudicate the round.
Thank you gentlemen, and congrats to both of you for advancing to Round 2. Best of luck as well -- I'm sure finals are on their way for both of you!!