Judge: James Stanescu (Mercer 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 5, 2014 11:14:10PM EST by Donald Warden
Per Tournament Rules: "Please note: Debaters whose entire video entries are more than 30 seconds longer than the maximum length for any given speech should be considered an instance of abuse that can be a valid subject for debate." My video is 4:26
Posted at May 6, 2014 09:37:34PM EST by Zachary Zertuche
Sineculpa, Felix. Against Ethics: Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation with Constant Reference to Deconstruction by John d. Caputo, Chapter viii Several Lyrica-Philosophical Discourses on Various Jew-Greek Parables and Paradigms with Constant Reference to Obligation, Discourse no. 2: The Lament of the Lamb 1993. p. 186-90. Print./zzwc
Keith, Lierre. Author of The Vegetarian Myth: food, justice, and sustainability and ex-vegetarian. "WHY VEGETARIANISM WILL NOT SAVE THE WORLD." Interview by Ian Mackenzie. Matadornetwork.com. Matador University, 9 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/why-vegetarianism-will-not-save-the-world/>./zzwc
Hasegawa, Masoa. "Who Is Inhumane? A Discussion regarding Dolphin Fishing in Taiji." Japandailypress.com. The Japan Daily Press, 27 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. <http://japandailypress.com/who-is-inhumane-a-discussion-regarding-dolphin-fishing-in-taiji-2743059/>./zzwc
McNally, David. Professor of political science at York University The new imperialists Ideologies of Empire 2006. Ch 5, p. 103. Print./zzwc
"Should." Def. 1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 5th ed. 2009. Ahdictionary.com. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2014. Web. 6 May 2014. <http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=should&submit.x=21&submit.y=8>./zzwc
Wakatsuki, Yoko, and Madison Park. "Japan Officials Defend Dolphin Hunting at Taiji Cove." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/world/asia/japan-dolphin-hunt/>./zzwc
Posted at May 8, 2014 12:01:06AM EST by Donald Warden
Posted at May 8, 2014 07:35:47PM EST by Zachary Zertuche
None available for this speech.
Posted at May 10, 2014 12:30:57AM EST by Donald Warden
My first video is 4:25. My second video is 3:30. The timing rules are not hard set and can only be considered abusive if I went more than 30 seconds over. The binghamton video player adds a second, so my rebuttal speech looks like 3:31 when viewed on the binghamton website, but is really only 3:30 in YouTube.
Japan Population: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/
Vegetarianism won't kill you: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/vegetarian-diet
** NOTICE NO DEATHS **
Equality definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality
Dolphin Population: http://www.noaa.gov/index.html
- Must do some searching around to add up all the populations since dolphins live in small groups. Added up it is ~1 million.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 12, 2014 12:19:46AM EST by James Stanescu
|Category||Donald Warden||Zachary Zertuche|
|Use of evidence:||4||4.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.8||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.6|
|Identification of key points:||5.1||4.7|
|Comments:||(These comments are written as I watch the videos in order)
Prop: First speech, you start off well, and then get a little random with your speech rhythm/speed. No real reason for that.
Prop, Second Speech: The verbal pause of the word 'right" (which I also have), is taking away your speech time.
The factory farming argument isn't really getting you anywhere, because the opp is advocating "natural hunting", both prop and opp are advocating against factory farming. So, either advance a critique of hunting (perhaps the ways that hunting have historically been linked with imperialism and hierarchy) or spend more time on this question of equality. Maybe borrow Peter Singer's argument about the equality being one of equality of consideration of interest.
The africa argument is kinda good, and then you say modernity, and it becoems totally messed up.
You are sorta undercovering imperalism.
Last Speech: Your thing about more discussion on nonhuman rights is a new arg, and being ignored. Ditto for animals having morals.
|(These comments are written as I watch the videos in order)
Opp, first speech: I own the same Batman shirt. Proceed.
I'm not holding it against you unless your opponent brings it up, but Keith is a terrible transphobic. Just an fyi.
I might be misunderstanding your should argument, but I am not sure what recognizing should as an auxiliary verb does for you. It seems to me that you are making the argument that we should see should as deontic modality, instead of epistemic modality. But both those modalities are auxiliary verbs. But again, I might be misunderstanding your argument.
Opp concluding: You should put an impact on the extra speech time. I will think how to weigh that. I just checked the invite, and it says that over 30 secs equal automatic disqual. But even without an automatic disqualification, I think putting a voter of some sort would be useful, or telling me ignore the args made in that extra 30 secs. Something.
I agree the imperialism argument has been mishandled (funny aside, you might not want to keep using the word dehumanizing and then advocating equality to animals on the counterplan).
I agree his first two points are defensive, but besides lacking offense, I am still missing the impact of the should argument? Is this a T, and if so, where are the voters, etc?
On the counterplan: I think both you are getting a little bit into the whole two ships passing in the night thing. I do believe dropping the argument about justifying us dying
The decision is for the Proposition: Donald Warden
Reason for Decision:
This was a remarkably hard debate to judge, partially because of how good it was. I ultimately, barely, vote Prop.
Here is how I weighed the round:
(1) Both debaters agreed that the criterion of the round should be to vote for whomever best extends equality.
(2) I never understood any impact to the should argument, sorry.
(3) The imperialism argument flows opp. However, the opp allows the prop to heavily mitigate the impact of imperialism to effecting about 100 humans. Now, what would have been useful is if the argument had been made that imperialism controls the root cause of domination to other animals (human imperialism, if you will). Likewise, the prop could have made the argument that speciesism controls the root cause of imperialism. But neither make this argument. So what I am left with is some potential terminal impacts to imperialism that do not matter much when the criterion is equality, and a small decrease of equality to about a hundred humans.
(4) Counterplan. This is the issue that I had the hardest time judging, but also where all the real action was going on. However, both debaters were acting like two ships passing in the night (sorry for the cliche). There are, however, two mostly dropped arguments that the prop is making that I am buying. (a) that the natural logic and justification of the opp justifies not just violence toward other animals, but also between humans. That there will exist rape, violence, and all that stuff that goes on under the term state of nature. That natural relations are inherently ones of violence and domination, of inequality. (b ) That a system of violence is more unequal than just saying that being behave in different ways.
Because both debaters seem to agree I should vote for whomever creates more equality, I am buying that ending violence toward other animals is far more equal than imperialism to 100 humans, and the inequality of who might have morals.
Very close, very good round.