Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: THBT: An overriding ethical obligation to protect and preserve extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems should be incorporated into international law.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 11, 2016 05:37:59PM EST by Yuzuki Murakami
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 12, 2016 05:55:35PM EST by lucas beste
Nasa. "NASA ASTROBIOLOGY DEBATES." NASA ASTROBIOLOGY DEBATES. Nasa, 2016. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nasadebates.org/debates.php>.
Dictionary. "Definitions." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/>.
Bbc. "BBC - Homepage." BBC - Homepage. Bbc, 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/>.
Posted at April 13, 2016 10:28:48AM EST by Yuzuki Murakami
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 14, 2016 06:58:22PM EST by lucas beste
Sorry I went a little over on time, but It was only 8 seconds plus I was thanking my opponent and my judge, and my citations are the same from my first speech.
Posted at April 15, 2016 10:28:47AM EST by Yuzuki Murakami
mail online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3290754/ISS-swarming-GERMS-cause-skin-problems-astronauts.html
Space Treaty (the page start from 6〜)
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 17, 2016 04:17:59PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Yuzuki Murakami||lucas beste|
|Use of evidence:||2.5||3.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.3||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.1||3.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.7||2.8|
|Comments:||I think you should provide cites in the system for the evidence you're referencing. You should also impact out more why contamination is bad. Also you should explain why/how space exploration could be possible without any risk of contamination, otherwise you potentially end up negating yourself. I really like your privatization argument.
Good job answering your opponent. However, do more work extending your initial contentions. You should focus on what you mean by "ethical obligation." If you control what that means then you'll control what your proposition does and answer the majority of the opp's arguments. I like the space junk example.
Great job clarifying exactly what you're defending, which links out of most of the opp's arguments. I am not sure if this defends the resolution. However, if you define "overriding ethical obligation" more directly and control what the resolution means, it is certainly defensible.
|I like that you start out with definitions. I would define "overriding" though, as well as "ethical obligation." Also, try to talk with more emotion. You have a good framework but you'll need to answer how protecting ET microbes are key for future space development, which is in the prop's opening speech. When you answer the prop do more than say what she doesn't do. Respond to what she does.
I don't think that your opponent says we shouldn't go into space. She says we need to go into space in a way that doesn't cause contamination, which she says international law can solve. I think you should attack her international law solvency mechanism. You should lead your speech with framework and then code everything through that lens.
The decision is for the Proposition: Yuzuki Murakami
Reason for Decision:
The proposition turns the link of the opp's arguments since she argues that preserving microbial life is key for human research on microbes, as well as space exploration. The tree example shows how protecting microbes and the environment is key to human development. I think the opposition could have made a topicality argument out of the framework position to show how the prop isn't defending the resolution. However, in this debate I think the prop wins that protecting ET microbial life and ecosystems is key to human research and development of it, which solve back all the opposition's offense. To win a procedural argument against this the opp should argue fairness or education; or at least more directly catch onto what the prop is saying and attack that.