Judge: Kurt Falk (North Star Academy)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United Nations should adopt a resolution decrying or demanding an end to the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan.
Paul H. Lim
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 6, 2014 01:15:08AM EST by Paul H. Lim
Posted at May 7, 2014 12:32:02AM EST by Khasim Lockhart
Posted at May 8, 2014 01:10:57AM EST by Paul H. Lim
Posted at May 9, 2014 12:25:24AM EST by Khasim Lockhart
Posted at May 9, 2014 08:29:01PM EST by Paul H. Lim
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 12, 2014 01:45:40AM EST by Kurt Falk
|Category||Paul H. Lim||Khasim Lockhart|
|Use of evidence:||4||2.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.7||2.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||2.8|
|Identification of key points:||3||2.5|
|Comments:||In your first contention I think you missed a big opportunity to construct a rights framework for dolphins. While you said the slaughter was inhumane your opponent rightly called that out as subjective and without basis. Later on you supported the argument with evidence about dolphin similarity to humans but I think the constructive in general was missing really strong analysis on animal's rights.
I think this is partly why your slavery example in refutation to the opp contention about tradition came off a little weird. I think in general slavery is kind of an extreme example. You could talk about a tradition like foot binding, which inflicts pain purely for cultural appeal.
But part of the reason why people view slavery as bad is because we believe humans have inherent rights and slavery is in violation of this. If you constructed a rights framework for dolphins (or animals in general) the slavery example would have made more sense because you could make the case that dolphins are having fundamental rights restricted and that these rights are the same as humans. Then you could say if we wouldn't do "x" to a human because of rights, we shouldn't then do it to a dolphin.
Your proposition closing had a good collapse on the arguments of yours that had gone under-addressed.
|Both your speeches were under time, which I think do you a disservice because your opponents case was relatively thin. You had more than enough time to very soundly defeat a lot of their arguments that had somewhat flimsy warranting.
I think a big thing to improve on is make sure that all your arguments have clear warrants or evidence backing them up. A few of your arguments came off as assertions which made it easier for prop to beat. I could see where you were going with the arguments, I just think they needed a lot more development so they could stand on their own.
A good example is your advocacy that humans are different than dolphins. Why? You need to be able to prove this beyond saying it. I'm not saying prop did a great job at deconstructing it in the round, but in the future creating more logical structures will give your arguments a lot more support. A good way you could have proved this is to prove why humans have rights dolphins don't or that humans gain a lot of utility from dolphins which was a framework never developed.
The decision is for the Proposition: Paul H. Lim
Reason for Decision:
I awarded the round to Paul because I feel that he was able to collapse on several of his arguments throughout the round that were either under addressed or not addressed at all by opposition.
Probably the argument that lent itself the most towards providing an RFD is the fact that opp did not address Prop's proposed plan and his reasoning for why this should be a plan based debate. I personally don't think this is a guaranteed winning argument in itself, but by not addressing prop was able to collapse on it.
While opp addressed prop's mercury point I don't believe enough was done to prove how mercury was not a harm. Prop did a good job of bringing up evidence of how the dolphin hunt had a direct contribution to increased mercury consumption.
Good luck with your other rounds! If you have any questions feel free to message me