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 12:34:17AM EST by Crystal Bouley
Andrew Butterworth (Clinical Veterinary School, University of Bristol Veterinary School UK), Philippa Brakes (Whale and Dolphin Conservation, UK), Courtney Vail (Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Massachusetts, USA), Diana Reiss (Department of Psychology, Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York), April 1st, 2013. "A Veterinary and Behavioral Analysis of Dolphin Killing Methods Currently Used in the 'Drive Hunt' in Taiji, Japan. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16:2, 184-204. http://sosdolphins.org/uploads/docs/Analysis%20of%20Taiji%20Killing%20Methods.pdf
Tetsuhiko Endo, Jan 29th, 2014 (Editor of The Inertia Surf, international journalist, surfer activist, M.A., postcolonial Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of London) Inertia Surf online: "Taiji's Dolphin Slaughter: Who's Really to Blame?"
Posted at April 30, 2014 12:12:19AM EST by ben xu
Gilgoff , Dan. "Dolphin roundup at Japans Taiji Cove puts spotlight on changing economics of hunts." Dolphin roundup at Japans Taiji Cove puts spotlight on changing economics of hunts. National Geographic, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/20/dolphin-roundup-at-japans-taiji-cove-puts-spotlight-on-changing-economics-of-hunts/>.
Hasegawa, Masao . "Who is inhumane? A discussion regarding dolphin fishing in Taiji." Who is inhumane? A discussion regarding dolphin fishing in Taiji. japandailypress, 27 Jan. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://japandailypress.com/who-is-inhumane-a-discussion-regarding-dolphin-fishing-in-taiji-2743059/>.
"The little town with a really big secret." dolphin slaughter in taiji. Oceanic Preservation society. Web. 22 Apr 2014. <http://www.opsociety.org/issues/dolphin-slaughter-in-taiji>.
"Factory farming." Factory farming. WSPA. Web. 22 Apr 2014. <http://www.wspa-international.org/wspaswork/factoryfarming/>.
Posted at May 1, 2014 01:51:56AM EST by Crystal Bouley
Andrew Butterworth (Clinical Veterinary School, University of Bristol Veterinary School UK), Philippa Brakes & Courtney S. Vail (Whale and Dolphin Conservation UK), Diana Reiss (Dept. Psychology, Hunter College, US), 01 Apr. 2013. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16:2, 184-204
Rachelle Adams, 2008 (Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Law Institute @ Lewis and Clark Law School) Animal Law, vol 14, p.133
Emily Claire Sipes, April 12, 2012. (M.A. Thesis, "Philosophical-Legal Considerations for Ending Japanese Hunting of Small Cetaceans" Lehigh Univ.)
Posted at May 2, 2014 10:02:56PM EST by Crystal Bouley
Andrew Butterworth (Clinical Veterinary School, University of Bristol Veterinary School UK), Philippa Brakes & Courtney S. Vail (Whale and Dolphin Conservation UK), Diana Reiss (Dept. Psychology, Hunter College, US), 01 Apr. 2013. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16:2, 184-204 http://sosdolphins.org/uploads/docs/Analysis%20of%20Taiji%20Killing%20Methods.pdf
Emily Claire Sipes, Apri 12, 2012. (M.A. Thesis, "Philosophical-Legal Considerations for Ending Japanese Hunting of Small Cetaceans" Lehigh Univ.) http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2284&context=etd&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Demily%2520claire%2520sipes%26FORM%3DIPGTLB%26PC%3DIPGTDF%26QS%3Dn#search=%22emily%20claire%20sipes%22
Rachelle Adam 2008 (Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Law Institute @ Lewis and Clark Law School) Animal Law, vol 14, p.133 http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol14_2_133.pdf
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 3, 2014 08:04:17PM EST by Randal Horobik
|Category||Crystal Bouley||ben xu|
|Use of evidence:||3||2.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.3||3.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.8||3.7|
|Identification of key points:||3.7||3.3|
|Comments:||Crystal -- Congrats on making Round 2!! I enjoyed your pleasant tone and style. My biggest suggestion for you would be to work on injecting more of your own analysis into the argumentation. You spend significant chunks of speeches reading from evidence. Break those blocks into the bare essentials to build the argument and then let us hear you, Crystal Bouley, connect those dots in your own unique way. You come across on video as extremely personable, so doing this would only magnify an existing strength that you possess.||Ben, congrats to you as well for making Round 2! Unfortunately, like Crystal I was unable to hear anything for the first 27 seconds of your Negative rebuttal. I don't think the silence impacted my decision, but always, always, always make sure you have a good take before uploading in a format like this. I thought the economic impact argument was unique (from the bits and pieces I've watched on other debates in this topic) and I would encourage you to develop that deeper if you advance. I think it gives weight to the Opp position.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Crystal Bouley
Reason for Decision:
Thank you both for your time in this debate. I enjoyed listening to your performances.
The Prop case basically revolves around a pair of positions, both in a value/moral/ethical framework. The first of these being that the method of slaughter is inhumane and the second that there is this "moral obligation" to step in when we see injustice (Ms. Bouley, I believe, used the term "tragedy"...I think the two are synonymous in the sense she's employing the latter).
Opp provides an attack on the first by attempting to draw a parallel to factory farms and the conditions there, but gets quickly shot down when Prop brings back in that the situation confronting dolphins would be illegal in slaughterhouses. Opp adapts in rebuttals here to say that torture is torture regardless of degree. I don't think any evidence was read in the first 27 seconds, but if that silent potion impacted the round, it was here if evidence appeared). The problem with the torture is torture viewpoint is 1. It grants that what is going on with dolphins is torture (granting an inroad into the moral/ethical framework Prop argues under) and, 2. you're leaving me to my own devices to decide if there are or are not varying degrees of cruelty under the heading of "torture" (and my default position is that I believe there are, which is why evidence here would have been useful).
The "moral obligation" point was steering toward a little more interesting ground as Opp sets up an argument talking about the UN's purpose being toward human rights (which could have opened the door to some extremely fertile ground to clash in). Both halves of the debate kind of drop this segment however in rebuttals.
Opp also initiates what I feel to be two significant lines of reasoning in his constructive -- A. that dolphins aren't threatened and B. that there will be economic impacts to global economy (or at least economies around the globe) if the hunt is stopped.
Prop gets the better of the evidence war on the threatened status, quoting that the decline might be getting caused by over-harvest. She gets out from under B. by quoting Opp's words that the UN can't solve...if we can't change anything, then the link to the billions in economic impacts is severed as Prop identifies in her first rebuttal. She also hits at the aquarium ban on Taiji dolphins here, Opp tries to attack this, but it also appears in his own Gilgoff evidence linked in constructive. The economic impact issue was also lessened when Opp doesn't assert his cost-benefit analysis mechanism strongly in rebuttal and allows Prop to steer the "talk time" of the debate into moral and ethical waters.
In closing, Prop wins the skirmish on her first point and this is enough to carry the war as I feel she takes out the Opp position through evidence and analysis.