Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
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 12:29:25AM EST by Omid Abaei
3. (UN Court orders Japan to end whaling; 2014)
4. (Over 60% of Japanese food imports come from members of UN.)
5. (Over 80% of Japan's crude oil imports come from members of UN)
6. (2014; poisonous dolphin meat)
7. (dolphin meat)
8. (2012; dolphin rights)
9. (2009; Broome cutting off ties)
10. (Kennedy and Shinzo Abe tweets 2014)
Posted at April 29, 2014 10:12:57PM EST by Lidija Jurovich
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 1, 2014 01:20:44AM EST by Omid Abaei
1. (UN orders Japan to end whale hunting in Antarctic; 2014)
2. (Animal welfare on UN agenda in 2013)
3. (PETA euthanizes over 90% of it's animals; 2013)
Posted at May 1, 2014 09:37:42PM EST by Lidija Jurovich
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 3, 2014 01:23:54AM EST by Omid Abaei
1. (Japan whale hunt in Antarctic banned by UN) http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/un-court-orders-japan-to-end-whaling-as-hunt-is-not-scientific.html
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 4, 2014 08:49:15PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Omid Abaei||Lidija Jurovich|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||2|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||4|
|Comments:||You need to make sure that you have a policy person as a judge before you go at the speed that you do. Good speech organization. I would have liked to see a specific affirmation of the resolution instead of just affirming its entirety since there is an "OR" statement in the resolution. Good job pre-empting popular arguments that are getting made.
You're wasting your time answering the PETA arguments since you could more effectively just say use PETA alongside UN (perm) or point out how the opposition doesn't explicitly advocate an alternative since there's no formalized counter-plan. You could be identify those portions you need to debate and those you can mostly agree with and still win. In this format you need to better identify key points to use your limited time more effectively.
ALWAYS CHECK YOUR SOUND. YOUR VIDEO IS VERY QUIET IN YOUR LAST PROP SPEECH. I COULD HEAR BUT BARELY.
|You should have your cites available for people to look up. I also like that you put the focus on the UN versus the dolphin hunt since you make clear what you're disputing from the onset. I would make some of your arguments in observation two to be a more formalized counter-plan or advocacy. Ie you have this debate set up for a good direct action vs reformism from within debate. I like that you edited your video to make your end stronger. I also appreciate that you keep it with the alien head.
Instead of just saying there's a bunch of examples of alternatives it would be better if you pick one and advocate for it and then explain why UN action gets in the way of direct action. You could better identify key points by not getting dragged into a PETA fight and spend more time deepening your offense to the UN. You also need cites to back up your points since your opponent has sources that he's using to attack your claims.
The decision is for the Proposition: Omid Abaei
Reason for Decision:
In the last speech the opposition seems to be going for PETA CP. And, if not that, just anyone else but UN (individuals, other direct action) CP. First, as in my comments I'd like it more formalized and clearer what you're advocating. However, the opposition doesn't call that out so I will spot the existence of the CP. However, even in the world of the CP I don't know why it would serve as a reason to reject the proposition outside of it being a "waste of time." The opposition should better create disadvantages to the the proposition's advocacy to show why the CP alone is the best option. Even without a permutation the oppositions still needs to establish a reason for why to reject the proposition OR a framework for how to vote for the opposition if you just have another good (potentially better) idea. I would have liked to see the proposition have a permutation argument. Ultimately, I don't understand why affirming is bad even if the opp has some reasons why some other actions would be good. Spend more time on offense against the case.