Judge: Brandon 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.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 6, 2014 09:32:01PM EST by Donald Warden
Posted at May 8, 2014 11:21:34PM EST by Donald Warden
Primarily logic based. All contentions referenced to are cited by myself or my opponent in the past speeches.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 13, 2014 01:45:21PM EST by Brandon Evans
|Category||Kyle Nelson||Donald Warden|
|Use of evidence:||3.3||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4.1|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||2.9|
|Identification of key points:||4||4.1|
|Comments:||Try to make more eye contact. Your first two speeches look too much like you're just reading off your computer and not like you are trying to communicate with me.
You need to make an argument about why the plan and counter-plan can be done together. There is absolutely no reason in the round why we can't just do both, which means that the counter-plan doesn't prove that the resolution is false. Making an argument like that would make it an instant proposition ballot.
|Please stop saying "right" and "like" so much.
The purpose of a counter-plan is to prove opportunity cost with the proposition's plan. You do not provide a reason why the plan and counter-plan are impossible to do at the same time, nor to you provide reasons why the plan is bad, only why it is less good. It is really hard for me to vote on "we solve better" alone.
The decision is for the Proposition: Kyle Nelson
Reason for Decision:
This debate is frustrating to evaluate. There are many things unanswered and arguments not made that would make this much simpler (See above).
The main place I have to intervene with in order to make a sensible decision is how the counter-plan functions on a theoretical level. The opposition does not make any arguments about why he gets access to "fiat", meaning the ability to pass the plan regardless of the structural barriers that exist for the sake of making the debate possible. For this reason, I am able to evaluate the proposition's argument that the counter-plan would never happen as a solvency deficit. Given that the opposition has conceded the proposition's claim and evidence of being able to solve, the possibility that the counter-plan won't happen is more important than the time-frame differential that the opposition outlines, especially when the opposition does not explain why time matters in relation to the proposition's harms. For that reason, I vote proposition. If either side gave a single reason why the other team's plan made matters worse instead of just "I solve better," I would likely have voted for that side.
Furthermore, it would have been helpful if either side explained how I should choose the winner of this debate. In policy debate, the round is usually decided based off of competing policy options. However, the resolution could also be interpreted as a statement that the proposition has to prove is true. This is what the proposition seems to attempt to do as he does not have an explicit plan. If this is the case, is the counter-plan a reason why the resolution is untrue? This round has not shown that to be the case. Again, an argument about the compatibility of the two strategies would have been immensely helpful.
By the way, if either of you would like to watch the public debate Binghamton hosted this weekend involving discussions of dolphin and whale hunts, you can find it here. It features famous environmental activist Captain Paul Watson, who debated with me against our Head Coach, Bill Shanahan, and Team President, Trevor Reddick. I hope you will check it out and hopefully gain additional information on this topic from it.