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: Sam Burns (Santa Clara University) vs. Opposition: DELETE ACCOUNT (Unaffiliated)

Judge: Joe Koehle (Kansas State University)

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

  • Sam Burns
    Sam Burns
    vs.



    DELETE ACCOUNT
    DELETE ACCOUNT
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2014 11:07:06PM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/27/opinion/safina-dolphin-hunt-killing-method/

    http://www.bluevoice.org/news_dolphinmeat.php

    Posted at April 29, 2014 09:56:40PM EST by DELETE ACCOUNT

    Citations

    Show

    Mutua 1 [Makau, Dean of the University at Buffalo Law School, Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights, Harvard International Law Journal 42.1 (Winter 2001): 201-245]

    Ahmed 10 (Nafeez Mosaddeq, PhD in International Relations from Sussex University, Yale Journal of International Affairs, Volume 5, Issue 2, Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises, 7/20/10, accessed 1/10/13) (http://yalejournal.org/2010/07/20/globalizing-insecurity-the-convergence-of-interdependent-ecological-energy-and-economic-crises

    Mszros 6 (Istvn, Monthly Review, September, The Structural Crisis of Politics)

    HEROD 2004 (James Herod, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm)

    Holloway, 05 (John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Can we change the World without taking power, A debate between Holloway and Alex Callinicos, August 16th, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616)

    Mszros, 95 (Istivan, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, Beyond Capital, pg. 39-40)

    Reinsborough, (Organizer, Rainforest Action Network and Wake Up America Campaign) 03 (Journal of Aesthetics and Protest, August 2003, Volume 1, Issue 2, Patrick).

    Posted at May 1, 2014 12:09:43AM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    (Invest Wisely. End Poverty. 2010. https://www.microplace.com/learn_more/howitworks.)

    Gilligan, 96 [James, Former Director of Mental Health for the Massachusetts Prison System, Violence, p.]

    Posted at May 1, 2014 08:26:16PM EST by DELETE ACCOUNT

    Citations

    Show

    Theory not a voter. First, we meet their interpretation. The alternative is to refuse to participate in capitalism our advocacy is that everyone should participate in that process. And they must win in-round abuse. We dont spike out of any offense, you should be skeptical of their claim that they have actor and mechanism-specific links to disadvantages on the Cap K. There is no strategy skew. The proposition has unlimited prep time and the rhetorical advantage of 1st and last speech the K is a priori question. They concede our Mesazaros evidence that the crisis of capital is foundational to structuring all other crises in the 21st century. This is a disadvantage to their focus on policy making first because our criticism is key to policy making in the context of neoliberal capitalism.

    AND Counter-interpretation: The judge is a scholar and an educator and the role of the ballot is to decide between competing intellectual endorsements this outweighs their interpretation and the case because the ethical and moral implications of advocacy need to be considered. Fiats illusory they only have their advocacy so we should be able to argue that their fundamental intellectual premise is false. Their framework argument constitutes an assault on the engagement of personal and social agency in the context of policy issues, propagating a neoliberal pedagogy that turns educational institutions into training grounds for anti-intellectual academics who serve as corporate puppets. This turns their fairness claims. And their framework trains us to become servants to the bureaucracy and makes us cognitively defenseless against the logic of institutions. Our alternative is key. We control education in a world they conceded is structured through capitalism.

    MY OPPONENT HAS CONCEDED THAT THE UN IS A TOOL TO deploy Western-controlled neoliberal domination

    THEYVE CONCEDED Single-issue campaigns like the affirmative are nothing more than masking reforms that sustain the system.

    THEYVE CONCEDED THAT THEIR OWN methodology makes error replication inevitable because it is concerned with solving fleeting, conjunctural crises, which are recurring features of the fundamental structural crisis of capital

    THEREFORE THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT WHETHER CAPITALISM IS GOOD OR BAD

    REMEMBER ALSOTHAT THEYVE CONCEDED THAT CAPITALISM IS driving the depletion of natural resources at unsustainable, rates, THE CAUSE OF climate change and energy crises THAT are detrimentally impacting our ability to sustain global food production.

    YOU SAY CAPITALISM IS GOOD IT SOLVES FOR POVERTY THROUGH MICROFINANCE
    However the scope of microfinance is extremely limited while it might make someone marginally better off it sustains a system of capitalism which is massively unequal.

    Remember also that my opponent conceded that capitalism is at the root of international terrorism the collapse of governments and militarization- THE biggest impediment to economic development is conflict. Youre also conceding that cap destroys the environment so when climate change fucks the world for good what the hell will microfinance be able to do?

    Microfinance is worse than cap its like putting a band aid on someones profusely bleeding wound and telling them theyre oaky

    Global inequality is at its highest level in history
    Krishna, pol sci prof, 9Professor of Political Science at U Hawaii, Ph.D. in political science (Sankaran, 2009, Globalization & Postcolonialism: Hegemony and Resistance in the Twenty-first Century, RBatra)
    3 billion subsists on less than two dollars a day, this picture of widening inequality is relatively new evidence show that different parts of the world were not so unequal the distribution of affluence and poverty was nowhere near as polarized as today.

    Neoliberalisms rapid requirement for urbanization exacerbates the rich-poor divide resulting in ruined livelihoods, increased inequality, increased poverty, detrimental environmental impacts, and horrific living conditions
    Greenberg, Ph.D in Anthropology at University of Michigan, 2012
    (James B., Thomas Weaver (Ph.D. in Anthropology at University of California at Berkeley), Anne Browning-Aiken (Ph.D. in Anthropology at University of Arizona), William L. Alexander (Professor of Anthropology at University of Arizona), The Neoliberal Transformation of Mexico, Neoliberalism and Commodity Production in Mexico, University Press of Colorado, pp 328-329)
    Neoliberal development has made the rich richer and the poor desperate. The economy and the environment have paid the price of neoliberal devel- opment. Although conditions were far from good,Employment, working conditions, distribution of income, and living conditions have become markedly worse for the masses under neoliberalism. As these conditions have worsened, so have violence, oppression, and environmental degradation. these policies have deepened poverty and ruined livelihoods

    Neoliberalism exacerbates wealth gaps and leads to tremendous poverty
    Albo, Department of Political Science, York University, 06 (Gregory, The Unexpected Revolution: Venezuela Confronts Neoliberalism, Presentation at the University of Alberta, International Development Week, 1/06, http://socialistproject.ca/theory/venezuela_praksis.pdf)
    The social impacts of neoliberalism have been dismal. Social exclusion and polarisation t have continued with faltering per capita incomes and massive informal sector growth. unemployment levels have hovered between 15 to 20 per cent for a decade. There has been no radical redistribution of income.


    YOU SAY SOCIETY IS CAPITALISTIC BY NATURE as if its fact and provide no evidence

    Discourse about the inevitability of capitalism makes it inevitable capitalism is self-constructed that can be changed
    Gibson-Graham, 2006 (Graham is Professor of Geography for Clark University, Gibson Prof. Geosciences University of Mass. Amherest,A Postcapitalist Politics, p. 53-54)

    The argument that we cannot overcome capitalism saps the critical energy from revolution the system is only strong because we think it is
    Zizek in 1995 Slavoj, Ideology Between Fiction and Fantasy, Cardozo Law Review, page lexis
    the massive presence of Capitalism as a universal world system: bears witness to the unprecedented homogenization of today's world. since the horizon of social imagination no longer allows us to entertain the idea of an eventual demise of Capitalism - since, as we might put it, everybody seems to accept that Capitalism is here to stay - So we are fighting our battles for the right of dolphins while Capitalism pursues its triumphant march

    The call for reform without complete abandonment of capitalism coordinates leads to passive acceptance of capitalism that coopts the alt
    Zizek, 02 (Slavoj, Senior Researcher at the University of Ljubljana Revolution at the gates p.169- 171)
    problem with this critical stance is not only that it replaces concrete social analysis but it unnecessarily redoubles social reality, as if there were a secret Organization behind the "visible" capitalist and state organs.

    You say cap is good for women because of microfinance? Thats a god damn lie because Capitalism is the root cause of patriarchy
    Cloud 3 (Dana, Marxism and Oppression, Talk for Regional Socialist Conference, Aoril 19, 2003 p. online)
    Womens oppression originated in the first class societies, governments or state structures formed to legitimize an emerging ruling class. As settled communities grew in size as the surplus grew, the distribution of wealth became unequal. The earlier division of labor in which men did the heavier work, , became a system of differential control over resource distribution. The new system required more field workers and sought to maximize womens reproductive potential

    womens oppression always has served a class hierarchy in society., ideas about womens nature as justify paying women lower wages compared to men. capitalist society relies on ideas about women to justify not providing very much in the way of social services/ contemporary ideologies that pit men against women encourage us to fight each other rather than organizing together.


    The battle isnt about what comes after capitalism its toppling the monolith. Vote neg.

    Posted at May 3, 2014 01:49:23AM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    Mr. Dikowitz is very good at identifying every single thing thats wrong with the world, and thats great, but he never does anything about them. He says capitalism is bad, but when asked what we should do instead of capitalism, hes basically saying we shouldnt do capitalism. He provides no viable alternative so you have to flow the capitalism argument to my side. General Ks are not good for debate as they limit both fairness and education. So even if you buy that capitalism is bad, you still vote prop on this issue because he provides no viable alternative. He doesn't provide a real counterinterpretation in the form of a shell or with any standards. Instead he provides a weak counter interp that doesn't truly give you a reason to vote for them. They say they want to discuss their idealogies and that is a better interpretation. That would be fine, except all their offense stems from this ideology. He is still abusive and links into my theory arguments due to this. He says I am trying to delude us with my interp, but in reality I am hoping to open our eyes to the real world. You can't look to his hypothetical questions that have no solvency in the real world. You still vote prop on theory. He says that he meets my interpretation by saying that his alternative is to refuse to participate in capitalism, and his advocacy is that everyone refuses to participate in capitalism. This is actually going against everything my theory was supposed to prevent. I cant possibly prepare for every single argument that he could run in conjunction with his general K. By not allowing me to hone into specifc arguments, he is limiting fairness by limiting my ability to prepare for what he is going to say. He says its not about what happens after we get rid of cap, its about toppling it now. That is crazy for us to blindly get rid of all that we know just because there are flaws within the system. We can reform capitalism and ensure that we can address all his disadvantages within this system. You dont throw away an umbrella just because its not raining. Vote prop to not only fight the bad parts of capitalism with the dolphin hunts but to promote the good parts of it. He also barely addresses my microfinance point linking to my Gilligan Card. He just said it isn't big enough in the grand scheme if it means perpetuating unequal capitalism. micofiancing saves lives and promotes the good parts of capitalism. the gilligan card not only show how I save lives but that he risks them by destroying the system
    Capitalism hasn't led to global collapse, environmental destruction and the creation of a war, so his impacts are not as serious as he thinks. He keeps on claiming over and over that Capitalism is so bad, and then we must put an end to it by not doing it? It doesnt make a whole lot of sense. By limiting fairness, the Prop wins on Theory, Fairness, and Education. When he says I concede all this stuff, it doesn't matter when it comes to the fact that he provides no reasonable alt. Some harms in a good society are better than a society that is solely harmful.


    To Recap:
    This biggest voter in this round is Theory. You drop the debater because he limits the fairness and educational value of this round. This is strike 1.
    Next voter is humanity: He again never really addresses the point that the Dolphin Hunt is completely inhumane. He goes all in on cap, but Ive already showed you why it flows to my side. This strike 2.
    Final voter is poverty.
    By saying we need to get rid of capitalism, he saying that we should promote the deaths that poverty causes each and every year.
    This is strike 3 and hes outta here. By voting prop, youre voting for the side that is not limiting the fairness and educational value of the debate and is also actually trying to go out and solve problems, instead of sitting back, criticizing, and watching the impovered die. Vote prop.


    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 5, 2014 12:27:15AM EST by Joe Koehle

    Category Sam Burns DELETE ACCOUNT
    Use of evidence: 3.2 4
    Delivery skill: 3.3 3
    Coherence of arguments: 3.7 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 4
    Identification of key points: 3.3 4
    Comments: Way too much time spent on theory. You need more argument diversity on the cap k besides theory and the poverty turn. Permute the argument. The UN and single issue struggles aren't exactly the most insurmountable link arguments.

    I'd be open to arguments that the form of his argument/the techne it relies upon is something I should consider against him.

    Why don't you research a specific card about the dolphin hunt? It'd be pretty easy to google one up and would help weave everything together better.

    There's no need for you to cuss as much as you do.

    I'd be open to arguments that the form of your argument/the techne it relies upon is something I should consider against you.

    The decision is for the Opposition: DELETE ACCOUNT

    Reason for Decision:

    The affirmative is just getting spread out pretty badly. Most of these theory arguments are just really uncompelling. His alternative is not very vague, and has at least as much social significance as the propositon's case.

    The substantive debate is won clearly by the negative--even if the aff wins the poverty arguments they are outweighed by the neg's multiple impact arguments.


    1 Comment

    Thanks for a great round Steven. You're a very talented debater. Thank you Mr. Koehle for judging! - Sam Burns on May 7, 2014 at 12:23PM EST

    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT