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.
|Click to begin|
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 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.
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|
|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: