Judge: James Stanescu (Mercer 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 May 5, 2014 03:03:00AM EST by Christian Chessman
A full transcript of the speech, including cites, is available in the YouTube description.
Posted at May 6, 2014 10:54:53PM EST by Bridget Kernan
"Stop Elephant Poaching: Ban Ivory Trade." Peachy Green RSS. Wildlife, 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. <http://www.peachygreen.com/wildlife/stop-elephant-poaching-ban-ivory-trade>.
Godbole, Medha. "Endangered Dolphins." Buzzle. Buzzle.com, n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/endangered-dolphins.html>.
"Why The United Nations Is a Useless Failure." Phil for Humanity. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. <http://www.philforhumanity.com/Why_the_United_Nations_is_a_Useless_Failure.html>.
Posted at May 7, 2014 05:08:04PM EST by Christian Chessman
A full transcript of the 2AC, including cites, is available in the description of the YouTube video.
Posted at May 8, 2014 04:27:15PM EST by Bridget Kernan
If my opponent has trouble understanding my speech due to speed, as I did with his, here is the complete textual version of my speech.
Posted at May 9, 2014 09:08:10PM EST by Christian Chessman
A full transcript of the speech, including cites, is available in the description of the YouTube video.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 13, 2014 01:01:23AM EST by James Stanescu
|Category||Christian Chessman||Bridget Kernan|
|Use of evidence:||5.4||5.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.4||5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.4||5.2|
|Identification of key points:||5.2||4.9|
|Comments:||See reason for decision, found below.||See reason for decision, found below.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Christian Chessman
Reason for Decision:
So, this is by far the most interesting debate I have seen in this format. I am tired, and sub'd in to judge, and I both kinda love and hate Joe for assigning me this debate. (I did laugh at the picture of the dolphin during the speed up part of the Opp's speech for a while).
(1) Is there, or is there not a patriarchy K? That's a tricky question. If the Opp wants me to believe there is, I suggest perhaps less use of cards, and more of an explanation at the link level. What I get is that in a linked document, there was a meme to a movie (that might or might not be sexist, it certainly isn't an anti-sexist film), that the meme contained gendered language, that the prop speaker made fun of the LOST DA, and that the prop had accused the opp of plagiarism and threatened actions outside of the round. First two points might have been the grounds for a decent in debate link, but are not ground of sexism that I believe means I should just drop the prop. The making fun of the LOST DA in and of itself is not sexist (because, also, it is a terrible DA). However, I can see the world where it could be made an argument for that as being behavior that creates negative effects for women in debate. Again, this is the sort of thing that needs to be brought up in round, and explained out.
The last bit is the personal bit about plagiarism. I don't really understand if it is sexist. It seems kinda jerky of the prop (though I am not really sure what the accusation is).
In general, I don't understand the link level strongly enough to ignore the basic norms of debate, and intervene. So no, there is not a patriarchy K in this debate.
(2) kritik of speed/spreading. New arguments in later speeches are often not abusive, they are just not effective because the final speaker can just make answers that are not respondable. Much of this happens with the spread K. This becomes doubly true, when the argument seems to be almost entirely satire or performative, instead of made in the round. Perhaps if the there was a brief speed up part, and the rest was read in round? That would be stronger. Even if the spread up part included a speed K in the document, that would be helpful. But considering speech documents were provided by the prop, and the exact reasons that spreading is abusive where never stated, I don't know what to do. Again, I feel there needs to be more from the opp to justify judge intervention. And without that intervention, the arguments from the prop are all sound.
Anyway, I gave everyone high speaks (or at least what I think are high speaks for this tournament), and I enjoyed the round. I am busy, so delays in responses from me might happen, but I am happy to respond to questions that are sent to me.