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: Brennan Young (Winston Churchill High School) vs. Opposition: Chase Hutchinson (Wood River High School)

Judge: Sarah Evans (Binghamton University)

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

  • Brennan Young
    Brennan Young

    Chase Hutchinson
    Chase Hutchinson
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 5, 2014 11:03:14PM EST by Brennan Young



    Heritage 2000'
    American Heritage Dictionary

    UN 14'
    United Nations -Chapter 1... Purposes and Principles; Article 1 - UN RESTATED CHARTER-

    Shao '09
    David S. and Ann M. Brlow Professor of Political Economy and Strategy, Emeritus Stanford Graduate School of Business - Assistant Professor of Finance and School of Business and Management

    O'Barry '12
    Political/Environmental Activist of international/domestic Dolphin And/Or Whale associated events.

    Palmer '14
    Associate Direct International Marine Mammal Project Earth Island Institute

    Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 92

    Mulligan 10
    Shane Mulligan. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. November 2010. Energy, Environment, and Security: Critical Links in a Post-Peak World. Global Environmental Politics 10:4. Pages 86-88.

    Posted at May 6, 2014 10:32:01PM EST by Chase Hutchinson



    "Japan to Redesign Antarctic Whale Hunt after UN Court Ruling." Kantipur, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. <>.


    "Celebrities Demand President Make Japans Dolphin Slaughter a Key Factor in Next Round of TPP Negotiations." The Sparrow Project. N.p., 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. <>.

    McCausland, Clare. "United Nations Declaration on Animal Welfare: Why Not Rights?" Regarding Rights. N.p., 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 06 May 2014. <>.

    Posted at May 8, 2014 01:23:46AM EST by Brennan Young



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 9, 2014 01:16:11AM EST by Chase Hutchinson



    Trimarco, James. YES! Magazine. N.p., 7 Feb. 2014. Web. 08 May 2014.

    Posted at May 10, 2014 11:54:59AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 11, 2014 10:08:12AM EST by Sarah Evans

    Category Brennan Young Chase Hutchinson
    Use of evidence: 3 4
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 4
    Identification of key points: 2.5 2.5
    Comments: I think that in your rebuttal you did a good job of explaining where you're going and to answer all the key arguments, I'm just very perplexed why the same did not occur in your closing.
    Also, be sure to use all of your time when there are arguments that you aren't responding to. Even if you feel that you're winning and that's all the time you need to spend, you can use that extra time to go more in depth in why you are winning, what arguments are important, etc.
    It's good to let your opponent/judge know where you're going. I know that it's a video and can obviously pause, etc., but it's much easier if you just give a road map at the start. I know you're limited for time, but I think it's safe to assume to that no one would hold that time against you.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Chase Hutchinson

    Reason for Decision:

    On T - I personally believe the case is extra T, and I don't think the aff did enough to show why it wasn't, however, the neg doesn't do enough in his rebuttal/closing to show me why the aff isn't topical. Explain to me exactly how the aff violates this. All the neg basically say is that the aff isn't topical and this is bad for all these reasons. the aff says he meets, I don't believe he does, but you don't let me know why he doesn't, so there's no reason to assume he doesn't. Basically after the first negative speech there's no analysis on what your actual topicality violation is, just reasons why it's bad and voters.

    On case/S - I have no idea what the aff claims to solve for after the earlier speeches. By the aff closing I got basically Taiji will override Japan, and that the aff doesn't claim to solve all corruption. I mean I'm not really sure how the aff solves any corruption, or for anything else for that matter. I'm not sure why you kicked out your ethics or cultural relativism arguments. I assume it was a time issue, but I have the neg extending turns on them and while I don't have any real idea exactly what those are, I assume related to the c/p or whatever, I have no answer at all in your closing so I'm going to have to give them to the neg.

    On C/P - the Aff never extends either of the perms, so It's basically case vs C/P. the multi actors mad argument was originally a voting issue, but in the aff closing argument this was never brought up. Just the fact that it's a lot of actors and can't research them all. I'm not sure why this is bad, like research bad or unfair. The neg makes the argument, with evidence, that it's part of the topic literature, and there's no reply to this. At this point I'm leaning neg on the C/P.

    On the D/A - I'm not sure if this is really a D/A or a solvency take out/advantage to the C/P, but the aff does not respond to this at all in his closing. While the neg doesn't do much more than vaguely extend it in his last speech, at the point where it's completely conceded, I have no choice but to vote here. The aff won't solve, and even if they do it'll take years is basically my understanding of this argument after the neg rebuttal/closing. I think this is a really dumb argument, and not entirely what the original argument was. It wouldn't have taken much more from the aff than something to the effect of so what if it takes years, at least it solves something at some point, better than what's going on now, and you know any risk of solving is better than the status quo, but there is no real answer to the d/a in the aff rebuttal, and absolutely no answer at all in the aff closing.

    Basically I vote negative on the conceded D/A, especially given the fact that I'm leaning neg on the C/P with the dropped turns or whatever on cultural relativism and ethics.

    I don't like making arguments that aren't explicitly made in the round. It's not fair for either side to have a judge intervene and make arguments for them, or to interpret things their own way. Given that, this round was really frustrating because it was a lot of back and forth, no real weighing of arguments or clear cut this is how you vote and why. It became easy for me to determine how to vote only because the aff didn't do enough in his closing speech. It's a 2 minute speech and you spent half that time. This would've been okay if you had answered everything, or made an argument to the effect of this is where you vote, this is why vote, nothing else matters because of this kind of thing.

    If either of you have any specific questions or anything, please feel free to send me a message

    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: