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: Elaine Wei (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Colleen Holtan (College of the Atlantic )

Judge: Peter Beadle (Binghamton University)

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

  • Elaine Wei
    Elaine Wei

    Colleen Holtan
    Colleen Holtan
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 6, 2014 12:36:11AM EST by Elaine Wei



    Posted at May 7, 2014 12:30:07AM EST by Colleen Holtan



    Rachelle Adams,2008 distinguished Environmental Law Scholar @ Lewis and Clark Law School.

    James Hatley, Professor of Philosophy at Salisbury University

    Posted at May 7, 2014 11:47:21PM EST by Elaine Wei



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 8, 2014 10:55:28PM EST by Colleen Holtan




    I want to apologize but I had a very hard time understanding your speech, I don't know what the problem was therefore I did not have much to go off of and had to cut it short. Anyways, you did a good job.

    Posted at May 9, 2014 11:49:23PM EST by Elaine Wei



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 11, 2014 03:24:56PM EST by Peter Beadle

    Category Elaine Wei Colleen Holtan
    Use of evidence: 4.4 2
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.9 2.4
    Identification of key points: 5 3.1
    Comments: Slow down a bit or do some spreading drills to improve enunciation when speaking quickly. Otherwise a good job. You had a good starting position and did a good job extending your points across the flow. A fast speaker can be difficult to deal with, but if the judge is able to follow and you do not clash on the points you missed, then you will have some problems. Also in general there needed to be more clash beyond just raising questions about how valid or neccessary the resolution is. You ask good questions, but you do not provide the answers to them and leave your opponent free to extend her advantages through the round. And you do not introduce any disadvantages to voting for the proposition. So even if there are some doubts about how much solvency and how hig her advantages really are, there is reason to believe voting for the proposition would be at least somewhat better than the status quo.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Elaine Wei

    Reason for Decision:

    At the end of the round both of the proposition's advantages - reducing mercury poisoning and providing for more humane treatment of dolphins - remain intact and there are no disadvantages put forward by the opposition that would cause me to vote against the resolution. [Apologies in the attached vid, I think I might have mixed up "proposition" and "opposition" at the end but you should still be able to follow]

    Video from the judge:

    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: