Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Nicholas Holmes (University of Michigan-Flint ) vs. Opposition: Matt Coppola (Liberty High School)

Judge: Min Seob Lee (Kyunghee University)

Resolution: THBT: An overriding ethical obligation to protect and preserve extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems should be incorporated into international law.

  • Nicholas Holmes
    Nicholas Holmes
    vs.



    Matt Coppola
    Matt Coppola
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2016 10:21:54PM EST by Nicholas Holmes

    Citations

    Show

    Cole, Joshua & Carol Symes, 10/2013 (W.W. Norton & Company, "Western Civilizations: Their History and Culture").

    Hirshfield, Irvin 2/3/2016 (Professor of Biology, St. John's University, NASA Debate Interview Series, "NASA Debate Interview Series- Irvin N. Hirshfield": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeNH3KGAU8).

    National Geographic Society n.d. (National Geographic Online, "Deforestation": http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/).

    Tindall, George & David Shi, 12/2012 (W.W. Norton & Company, "America: A Narrative History").

    Williamson, Mark 2003 (Space Technology Consultant of Glebe House, Elsevier Science, "Space Ethics and the Protection of Space Environment": http://www.chriscunnings.com/uploads/2/0/7/7/20773630/space_environment.pdf).

    Posted at April 27, 2016 12:23:27AM EST by Matt Coppola

    Citations

    Show

    DEFINITION:

    “overriding.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

    CONTENTION 1:

    Weinberg, Brian, and Yinghui Liu. Design and Modeling of the NU Smart Space Drilling System (SSDS). http://www.coe.neu.edu/Research/robots/papers/Space2006.pdf.

    Dietrich-Egensteiner, Will. "Is an Obsession With Safety Stifling Space Exploration?" Popular Mechanics. N.p., 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2016. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a9813/is-an-obsession-with-safety-stifling-space-exploration-16282762/>.

    Simberg, Rand. Safe Is Not an Option: Overcoming the Futile Obsession with Getting Everyone Back Alive That Is Killing Our Expansion into Space. Jackson (Wyoming): Interglobal Media LLC, 2014. Print.
    <http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a9813/is-an-obsession-with-safety-stifling-space-exploration-16282762/>.

    CONTENTION 2:

    Simic, Ivan. "Failures of International Law and The Security Council's Tyranny." NewsBlaze News. 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. http://theliberiandialogue.org/2012/12/16/failure-of-international-law-and-tyranny-at-the-security-council/

    Wolfrum, Rùˆdiger. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making. Berlin: Springer, 2005. Google Books. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=UPMKltmh6n0C&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=international+law+does+more+bad+than+good&source=bl&ots=HJGA_d_455&sig=tvomLqzZ3Ue9j0BqNrafzgms0y8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDwK6O6onMAhVDk4MKHbBABfwQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=international%20law%20does%20more%20bad%20than%20good&f=false

    Posted at April 27, 2016 10:53:00PM EST by Nicholas Holmes

    Citations

    Show

    Hennings, Brian 8/26/2015 (Professor at Gonzaga University, NASA Debate Interview Series, "NASA debate interview I": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws6AX7nOuno).

    Kaspar, David 12/1/2015 (Professor of Ethics at St. John's University and author of “Intuitionism,” NASA Debate Interview Series, " NASA Debate Interview Series - David Kaspar": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXd1zaD1BTU).

    Tyson, Neil deGrasse 6/30/16 (Degree in Physics from Harvard University, Masters in Astronomy from the University of Texas at Austin, Masters of Philosophy in Astrophysics from Colombia University, PhD in Astrophysics from Colombia University, and Director of the American Museum of Natural History’s Hayden Planetarium, NASA’s Astrophysics Magazine, “The Search for Life in the Universe”: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/search_life_I.html).

    U.S. Department of State n.d. (Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, “Outer Space Treaty”: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/search_life_I.html).

    Posted at April 28, 2016 09:52:05PM EST by Matt Coppola

    Citations

    Show

    DEFINITION:

    “overriding.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

    CONTENTION 1:

    Weinberg, Brian, and Yinghui Liu. Design and Modeling of the NU Smart Space Drilling System (SSDS). http://www.coe.neu.edu/Research/robots/papers/Space2006.pdf.

    Dietrich-Egensteiner, Will. "Is an Obsession With Safety Stifling Space Exploration?" Popular Mechanics. N.p., 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2016. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a9813/is-an-obsession-with-safety-stifling-space-exploration-16282762/>.

    Simberg, Rand. Safe Is Not an Option: Overcoming the Futile Obsession with Getting Everyone Back Alive That Is Killing Our Expansion into Space. Jackson (Wyoming): Interglobal Media LLC, 2014. Print.
    <http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a9813/is-an-obsession-with-safety-stifling-space-exploration-16282762/>.

    CONTENTION 2:

    Simic, Ivan. "Failures of International Law and The Security Council's Tyranny." NewsBlaze News. 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. http://theliberiandialogue.org/2012/12/16/failure-of-international-law-and-tyranny-at-the-security-council/

    Wolfrum, Rùˆdiger. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making. Berlin: Springer, 2005. Google Books. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=UPMKltmh6n0C&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=international+law+does+more+bad+than+good&source=bl&ots=HJGA_d_455&sig=tvomLqzZ3Ue9j0BqNrafzgms0y8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDwK6O6onMAhVDk4MKHbBABfwQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=international%20law%20does%20more%20bad%20than%20good&f=false

    Posted at April 29, 2016 10:49:36PM EST by Nicholas Holmes

    Citations

    Show

    U.S. Department of State n.d. (Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, “Outer Space Treaty”: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/search_life_I.html).

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 1, 2016 02:38:52AM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Nicholas Holmes Matt Coppola
    Use of evidence: 4.1 4.3
    Delivery skill: 4.1 4.1
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4.1 4.3
    Comments: 1. For justifying 'we need protect all life forms equally', using historical precedents and analogies of current damages to eco-systems on the earth was a good strategy. But, even if you think it is a value debate so you think the feasibility of international law is not the important issue in this debate, but at least, I think you could have explaining why international laws are specifically required to protect and preserve all life forms because there are many other measures like domestic laws and 'scientific values' which can do same things. You don't have to prove international law is only or most justifiable means. Just explaining why it can be added in principle level may be enough.

    2. Examples of native Americans, European immigrants was good. But The crux of debate is, how you can emphasize similarity between your examples and the context of this debate, and how the native Americans and extraterrestrial life forms can be considered in the same line. What the interaction between native Americans and European immigrants? What kinds of interactions between human civilization and extraterrestrial life forms can be possible? What the moral values, not only for 'equality of all life forms' can justify specific level of interactions between these parties?

    3. If life forms can bring scientific values and future benefits, why domestic governments and individual corporations and explorers in the free market cannot see this benefit? Why it is the issue of international society? Why international society need to accept 'equality' as a principle standard to deal with this case?
    1. It was good to point out international law issue first. But Your main rebuttal was based on the stance ; 'it won't work because of past failures and powerless mechanisms'. I don't know how it can justify 'protection and preservation from international law is not required'. You suggested it will hinder scientific development, but in that case, you can make another clash that 'government regulation vs individual(countries, companies, plus any interesting parties) freedom' in this value debate as proposition speaker pointed out.

    2. As proposition speaker pointed out, how protection and preserving law can destroy extraterrestrial life forms was a little bit vague. Yes, we need priority in many cases and we cannot protect all. But still, there are plenty of careless actions and greedy motives which can harm environments are truly exists so why careful considerations during exploration works to minimize environmental harms are required is still valuable question we need to deal with.

    3. There are other points related to the matters which I can give it to you, but in this specific debate, I need to give you advice 'Please check your settings related to the videos prior to upload your videos.' I don't think you'll make same mistake again, but it could have been a bigger problem without cooperation from your counterpart, the proposition speaker.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Matt Coppola

    Reason for Decision:

    1. Equality vs Priority(Opposition Win)
    Equality of all life forms is the simple, consistent principle in the initial part of this debate. But when opposition speaker brought in the principle of Priority, and question if the extraterrestrial life forms do harm human and ecosystems of the earth, and hinder the scientific development, the lack of response from the proposition in this issue made me doubt how principle of equality can be applied in the complex reality. 'Native American' and 'Past mistakes of human civilizations' could have been made to good counters to opposition's case if why this mistakes cannot be justified from the beginning or why the lesson can be applied even in the case of different interesting parties like extraterrestrial life forms, so why the priority from opposition was mis-settled.

    2. Contribution to Science(Proposition Win)
    If we preserve something, we can remain the new possibilities. But if we don't, the possibilites are disappeared. As proposition pointed out, opposition couldn't provide the specific cases how internation law from propostion side can hider the development of science. Proposition provided a little bit more specific benefits in this issue.

    3. International law(Opposition wins)
    To prove feasibility of international law, not just enough to suggest positive case from proposition, suggesting reasons with related cases from opposition is required. Even if I accept the proposition speakers point 'it is a value debate', the characterization from opposition speaker was deeper analysis of value of international laws compared to proposition's effort in this issue. It was fortunate from opposition speaker mainly pointed out the infeasiblity, but moral justification of international law itself could have been deal with from proposition speaker in the part of setting this debate.


    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

    PHP MySQL SUIT