Judge: Kurt Falk (North Star Academy)
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 28, 2014 02:55:27PM EST by Lily Worst
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 29, 2014 10:43:40PM EST by Brian Cheon
Posted at May 1, 2014 11:48:38PM EST by Brian Cheon
Posted at May 2, 2014 07:16:32PM EST by Lily Worst
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 5, 2014 12:00:19AM EST by Kurt Falk
|Category||Lily Worst||Brian Cheon|
|Use of evidence:||3||2|
|Coherence of arguments:||2||2.9|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||1||2|
|Identification of key points:||2||2|
|Comments:||Make sure to upload the right video, it was hard to give helpful feedback in a round muddled like this, but keep debating!||When someone makes a mistake like this, it's important to recognize how to re-structure the round in a way to take advantage of the situation, which I feel you failed to do. Something to remember for next round. Keep on doing debate!|
The decision is for the Proposition: Lily Worst
Reason for Decision:
As you can imagine, this was an extremely difficult round to adjudicate. This was due to the wrong prop speech being uploaded which completely changed the structure of the debate.
Because of that, it was not possible to be completely objective because I was forced to make subjective decisions on how certain aspects of the debate should be weighed against each other. I feel that if different judges were to view this round they would all come up with different decisions. I really don't think there was a definite way to judge it in the way it turned out.
This is how I ended up weighing the 1st speech. So I noted the opp argument hat this was unfair because opp did not have a chance to respond. Prop addressed this argument by reasonably explaining that she will let the points help support opp, which sounded like a fair compromise considering that it seemed it would give significant advantage to opp to outweigh any disadvantage.
I thought the prop rebuttal was adequate in both addressing Opp constructive and in turn refuting some of her own points from the previous speech.
This is actually where I feel the opp began to make some mistakes. You constructive was pretty thin, with two points, only one of which, the hypocrisy point, was developed. If you had given a full length constructive, even without refutations, I think that combined with the props gift arguments to you would have made it impossible for prop to win the round.
In the last opp speech, your refutations to props responses to your points were not really engaging with what she was saying and she was able to beat them in her last speech. However, your point about her speech needing to be a policy speech was interesting, but prop soundly beat it in her last speech.
But none of this should have been enough to beat opp because opp still had the chance to pull thourgh the extensive argumentation that prop made in their favor in their first speech. The fatal mistake made by opp was not carrying through any of that argumentation in their last speech, which I feel would have surely won them the round.
This is where judging philosophy comes into play and where adjudication becomes difficult. Some judges would have counted the arguments even if opp didn't pull through the drops. Others, like myself, would like to actually see opp pull through the drops in order for them to count, otherwise they fall through in the round. This is ultimately a subjective call, and one that different judges will disagree on.
In the end, that means my RFD rests on the fact that prop was able to beat your only supported offense about hypocrisy while also proving why her 1st speech did not have to be policy oriented in order to be counted.
Very interesting round indeed from a meta theory perspective.