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: Jordan Knight (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Crystal Bouley (College of the Atlantic )

Judge: Susan Worst (Wood River High School)

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

  • Jordan  Knight
    Jordan Knight
    vs.



    Crystal Bouley
    Crystal Bouley
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 5, 2014 06:21:22PM EST by Jordan Knight

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/31/world/asia/japan-whale-hunt/

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp/story.asp?NewsID=33677&Cr=unep&Cr1=#.U1Cc_r9Cg1g

    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/animals-used-entertainment-factsheets/marine-animal-exhibits-chlorinated-prisons/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-dawn/is-japans-dolphin-slaughter-really-for-food_b_4656345.html

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/2306

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/321638

    http://www.opsociety.org/issues/dolphin-slaughter-in-taiji

    http://marinesciencetoday.com/2009/06/11/jellyfish-overpopulation-a-threat-to-the-oceans/#ixzz30RBELAJ7

    Posted at May 7, 2014 02:14:51AM EST by Crystal Bouley

    Citations

    Show

    Rachelle Adams, 2008 (Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Law Institute @ Lewis and Clark Law School) Animal Law, vol 14, p.133

    Arne Kalland (Senior Researcher and deputy director Nordic Institute of Asian Studies in Copenhagen) Dec. 1993, Anthropology Today, 9-6, p.3-7

    Brian Morton (The Natural History Museum, London) Marine Pollution Bulletin 71 (2013) 1-2

    James Hatley (Prof. Philosophy, Salisbury Univ, USA) 2011, Environmental Philosophy, 8-2, p.1-21

    Posted at May 7, 2014 10:57:09PM EST by Jordan Knight

    Citations

    Show

    (Citations)


    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/31/world/asia/japan-whale-hunt/

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/26/national/japan-kicks-off-first-whale-hunt-since-icj-ruling/#.U2qbvr9CiCQ

    http://www.unfoundation.org/who-we-are/impact/our-impact/a-stronger-united-nations/building-a-constituency-of-activists.html

    (Written Speech)

    The opposition states two ideas. First, that the United Nations would not have an effect on the banning of the annual dolphin hunt. Secondly, the opposition states that my plan lacks any solvency because I have no proof that the action of adopting a resolution by the United Nations would actually put an end to these hunts. The United Nations has effectively put an end to the loopholes which allowed Japanese organizations, like JARPA, to hunt for whales on the basis of scientific research. Along with this, Tokyo has recently called off a planned whale hunt in Antarctica following the International Court of Justices ruling that whale hunters could no longer take advantage of the scientific loophole in the 1986 global moratorium that allowed Japan to conduct lethal research on the mammals. So to say that the United Nations would not have a similar effect on the banning of dolphin hunts does not seem like a feasible conclusion. Also, the opposition makes the argument that the banning of the dolphin hunts would trigger nationalistic sentiments of the Japanese. However, the opposition mentions that much of Japan, including the International Whaling Commission, believes that the dolphin hunt should be ended. So I would not necessarily agree that our political relations would be affected due to the antagonizing of less than a hundred Taiji fishermen who will be helped financially if the propositions plan is followed. Along with this, the accusation that the Taiji fisherman may respond to the resolution by slaughtering more dolphins has no solvency as following the ban to whale hunts did not increase the slaughtering of whales, and the opposition does not provide evidence of any types of retaliations in her opening speech. Next, the decision of the United Nations is not meant to condemn one city of Taiji, or any of Japan for that matter. This regulation will set a standard that the United Nations will no longer standby and watch the slaughtering and exploitation of these beloved mammals and other marine creatures go unanswered. Next, the examples of activism brought up by the opposition may help those responsible for the slaughtering of these dolphins understand the gravity of their actions. However, there is already a sufficient amount of knowledge about the effects of these dolphin hunts. I do not disagree that activism is helpful, but the opposition does not provide any clear statistics that show such activism has led to a decrease in the slaughter of any dolphins in Taiji, or any animal for that matter. Also, even if these activists, such as the individuals brought up by the opposition, wanted to do more than simply talk about why killing animals is wrong, they would not be able to enforce any laws themselves because they have no jurisdiction. Also, when these activists do want their beliefs to go into law, they look for assistance from organizations that do have jurisdiction and the resources to fight these injustices, such as the United Nations. According to the Better World Campaign, an activist group, the United Nations should be taken advantage of in order to preserve peace in society. The oppositions argument fails to address my point which is that the end to the Taiji whale hunt would have a devastating economic effect on the lives of Taiji fishermen. The oppositions plan may have the same desire, but her plan fails to address the livelihoods of the Taiji fishermen who would be losing their main source of income. That is why a foreign subsidy from countries that have profited from the importation of these dolphins will accompany the passing of the resolution. While the opposition and I hold the same values, her method lacks solvency. Activists are not able to prevent individuals from legally slaughtering animals, but the United Nations can put an end to the regulations which permit it. Along with this, the opposition fails to take the lives of the Taiji fishermen who may otherwise become destitute without financial assistance following a ban on dolphin hunting.

    Posted at May 9, 2014 12:15:03AM EST by Crystal Bouley

    Citations

    Show

    Rachelle Adams, 2008 (Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Law Institute @ Lewis and Clark Law School) Animal Law, vol 14, p.133

    Arne Kalland (Senior Researcher and deputy director Nordic Institute of Asian Studies in Copenhagen) Dec. 1993, Anthropology Today, 9-6, p.3-7

    Brian Morton (The Natural History Museum, London) Marine Pollution Bulletin 71 (2013) 1-2

    James Hatley (Prof. Philosophy, Salisbury Univ, USA) 2011, Environmental Philosophy, 8-2, p.1-21

    Tetsuhiko Endo, Jan 29th, 2014 (Editor of The Inertia Serf, international journalist, surfer activist, M.A., Postcolonial Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of London) Inertia Surf online: "Taiji's Dolphin Slaughter: Who's Really to Blame?"

    Posted at May 9, 2014 09:19:55PM EST by Jordan Knight

    Citations

    Show

    (Written Out Speech)

    The opposition states that the United Nations would be ineffective in putting an end to the Taiji dolphin hunt. However, the proposition understands that there is no guarantee in such a policy. However, as stated previously, the United Nations has effectively eradicated the loopholes that Japanese organizations, like JARPA, took advantage of in order to hunt whales. So to say that there is no solvency in the idea that the efforts of the United Nations could potentially lead to an end of the Taiji dolphin hunt, as it did with the whale hunts in Japan, is not feasible. Even if there is only a slight chance that such a resolution could put an end to the slaughtering of these dolphins, then should it not be done anyway? Next, the plan of the opposition to rely on the efforts of activists does not take any immediate action. Along with this, the opposition does not respond to my previous statement in which I stated that there is no evidence that these activists have ever had an effect on preventing the continuation of any immoral acts, so the argument that we should rely on the effectiveness on activism, which seems to be the only aspect of her counterplan, should be thrown away. Also, efforts of the United Nations would act as a catalyst that could potentially trigger the Japanese government to put an end to these reprehensible acts. Even if the plan would temporarily single out a city, it seems more important that the lives of dolphins are thought of as being more important than the feelings of Japanese fishermen. Next, I am having trouble understanding that if the opposition agrees that the dolphin hunt should stop, why would she not be in favor a potentially efficient solution? Especially since this same organization assisted in banning whale hunts in the same country as well. Also, the opposition states that putting an end to the Taiji dolphin hunt would spontaneously reconfigure the intricacies of the Japanese economy and alter the feelings that both the Taiji fishermen and other Japanese citizens have towards their way of life. First, as stated previously, it can clearly be seen that I mentioned the importance of the Taiji fishermen in my opening argument and how that there are over one hundred of them, not twenty-six. Along with this the number of these fishermen should not be focused on. The livelihood of each of these fishermen is important. Next, the opposition makes the grand assumption that it is the societal norms of the Taiji people that is preventing an end to hunt. The thought of the opposition is that Taiji should realize the inhumaneness of these practices and change their way of life. The opposition seems to be stressing her feelings, not the feelings of the Taiji people. Aside from what she may think, the decision to hunt dolphins is purely economic. In a fairytale world, the people of Taiji could potentially realize what they are doing is wrong and put an end to these hunts. However, it is just not economically feasible. Along with this, the idea that these fishermen would just find other jobs is an oversimplification in itself. The plan of the proposition understands the economic realities of the Taiji people. A demanding an end to the Taiji dolphin hunt, accompanied by a foreign subsidy if the law did pass, would help the dolphins and the people those that the law may hurt, a group that the opposition seems to be forgetting.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 12, 2014 01:34:38AM EST by Susan Worst

    Category Jordan Knight Crystal Bouley
    Use of evidence: 3.7 3.6
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.6 3.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 3.6
    Identification of key points: 3.6 3.7
    Comments: Nice deliberate speaking style.

    Your plan for foreign subsidies is very vague and you don't really specify how it would work or who should pay. If Sea World has profited, do they pay, or the US government? Your opponent doesn't point this out, though she does point out that it's extra-topical.

    You talked about a resolution and then regulations, which the UN doesn't have the power to pass or enforce.

    The debate round ended up revolving around whether a UN resolution is likely to stop the hunt. She conceded that it worked in the past so that's where I (hold my nose a little and) vote.



    Very good strategy going for the idea that the UN resolution is the wrong way to accomplish the goal you both have. It basically takes out all of his first speech except for his foreign subsidy plan, which you should have addressed in your first speech. It's pretty vague and probably unenforceable and would have been relatively easy to take out, leaving the prop with nothing. You also gave good evidence why the resolution wouldn't have stopped the hunt.

    The problem came with your second speech, where you missed a couple of opportunities to attack his case. I believe I read that though the whalers had planned to cancel the hunt, it is now set to go ahead, and that the Japanese ships have set sail for the Antarctic. Citing this would have gotten you the ballot, because it takes out the only thing he has on the table, namely that UN action has worked in the past.

    On the economics you say that the fishermen are only doing this out of economic necessity. This links to his plan unless you take it out. Tell me why he shouldn't be allowed to argue this, or why it's vague and unenforceable. Your refutations in this area seemed speculative and a bit vague.

    I agree with your oversimplification argument, but I think that you both did some of that, so it's a wash.

    You have a smooth and persuasive speaking style.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jordan Knight

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote on the evidence presented that the UN has caused Japan to cancel its planned whale hunt. This past success leads me to buy the argument that there's at least a possibility of success now.

    This was really close.

    Thanks for an interesting round. Hope you both have a good summer.


    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