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: Chase Hutchinson (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Elaine Wei (Unaffiliated)

Judge: Trevor Reddick (Unaffiliated)

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

  • Chase Hutchinson
    Chase Hutchinson

    Elaine Wei
    Elaine Wei
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2014 01:01:28AM EST by Chase Hutchinson



    Contention 1:

    Dicke, Ursula, and Gerard Roth. "Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind." Scientific American. N.p., 28 Aug. 2008. Web. <>.

    Contention 2:

    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. <>.

    Contention 3:

    Messenger, Stephen. "Japan's Dolphin Hunt Likely Violates Japanese Law." N.p., 27 Jan. 2014. Web. <>.

    Contention 4:

    Sacirbey, Ambassador Muhamed. "Is Animal Rights the Next Human Rights?" The Huffington Post. N.p., 09 Jan. 2014. Web. <>.

    Contention 5:

    Zhou, Kelly. "Mercury Poisoning From Dolphin Meat Remains a Major Concern for 'Cove' Activists." TakePart, 27 Aug. 2012. Web. <>.

    Posted at April 30, 2014 01:15:51AM EST by Elaine Wei



    Posted at April 30, 2014 11:59:12PM EST by Chase Hutchinson




    A) Interpretation: When advocating a counterplan, which my opponent does, the opposition must show why they are competitive with the proposition plan.

    B) Violation: They advocate that we do the proposition plan after a contingency (a separate resolution to fight hypocrisy), which doesnt establish competition as they themselves concede that the proposition should still happen.

    C) Standards:

    1. Under a textual view of competition, Plan Contingent Counterplans are not competitive.
    Kerpen 02,
    [Phil Kerpen. The Problem of Plan-Contingent Counterplans. Tue, 23 Apr 2002.]

    2. Time Skew

    3. Strat. Skew

    4. Contingency predictability

    5. Breadth

    6. PERM

    D. Voters



    Posted at May 2, 2014 02:47:13AM EST by Elaine Wei



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2014 01:32:11PM EST by Chase Hutchinson



    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 May 5, 2014 12:50:56AM EST by Trevor Reddick

    Category Chase Hutchinson Elaine Wei
    Use of evidence: 3 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3.5
    Identification of key points: 3 3.5
    Comments: too much counterplan theory and not enough engagement with the policy framework. must do a better job of attacking the framework or explaining how you are a defense of a specific instantiation of the topic. need to extend the standards for your framework argument better into the last speech, explain better why he doesn't meet and the importance of what kind of debate we do is.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Elaine Wei

    Reason for Decision:

    The fundamental issue of this debate is the framework question, what is the role of the affirmative in this debate? The negative states that the affirmative must be a defense of a specific action by the United Nations whether it be decrying or demanding the end of the dolphin hunts for reasons of policy education and skills knowledge. This is not what the affirmative continuously defends as "a strong stance against dolphin hunting," as the critical delineation between the two is the implications of the policy action and the specificity of policy proposals. While both debaters do a very minimal amount of debate on the framework question in the rebuttals, the very little work that is done is massively important for the counterplan theory forwarded in the debate. How do I analyze the theory interpretation on counterplans seperately from the framework question or even prior to it? If I find that the affirmative doesn't meet its burden then I can't even analyze what the negative has done because the debate was already fundamentally skewed.The same goes for the arguments like competing interpretations, education, predictability, and so on. I think the proposition can use this debate to think critically about the ways standards for affirmative and negative positions in a debate, especially a policy one occurs. Those roles are important for how the debate functions to begin with, and will inform the rest of the debate and must be engaged with in a serious and prioritized way.

    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: