Judge: Guy Risko (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 7, 2014 12:52:53AM EST by Sumin Hwang
Posted at May 7, 2014 09:14:56PM EST by Lily Worst
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 13, 2014 10:20:10AM EST by Guy Risko
|Category||Lily Worst||Sumin Hwang|
|Use of evidence:||2.5||3.9|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.2||4|
|Identification of key points:||4.2||4.5|
|Comments:||You get drug into a "Policy vs. not policy" discussion-- you don't do a bad job RE: defending your perspective, but could simply say "Yes, I think the UN should do X action. I affirm the res, and the res is the policy". You eventually get there, but it takes awhile||I think the demand for a "plan" needs to be thought through more in the context of the demand that the UN decry the dolphin hunt. I think the CP work isn't bad, but you need to do something more than say "we solve better"-- some sort of backlash type arguments would serve you well|
The decision is for the Opposition: Sumin Hwang
Reason for Decision:
I think that the question of this debate gets muddy because its hard to tell why mutual exclusivity matters and how I should understand it. Rather than getting stuck on the "rules" of the debate, both debaters need to spend more time explaining to the judge the way to compare the two teams. Why should, for example, the pro have to defend immedicacy? Why should, for example, the Opp not be allowed to agree with some of the resolution? These are crucial questions that I don't have answers for.
In the end, I vote for the Opp because they have this hypocrisy thing happening, which Lily doesn't really answer. The "greatest good" arguments don't say the greatest good "now", per se, so I'm not sure why we shouldn't decry ourselves first.
Good debate, y'all!