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: Kirk Wu (San Marino High School) vs. Opposition: Matt Coppola (Liberty High School)

Judge: Chase Hutchinson (Wood River High School)

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

  • Kirk Wu
    Kirk Wu
    vs.



    Matt Coppola
    Matt Coppola
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2016 09:28:42PM EST by Kirk Wu

    Citations

    Show

    "Obligation." Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation.

    Best, Steven. “The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: Putting Theory into Action and Animal Liberation into Higher Education.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VII, Issue 1, 2009. http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/JCAS/Journal_Articles_download/issue_9/JCAS20VII20Issue20120MAY20ISSUE20The20Rise20of20Critical20Animal20Studies20pgs209-52.pdf

    Domanska, Ewa. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznon. Poland. "Beyond Anthropocentrism in Historical Studies."

    Berube, David [Professor of Communications at North Carolina State University]. "NASA Debate Interview Series - Dr. David Berube." Interview posted 24 Aug. 2015. http://www.nasadebates.org/David-Berube.php.

    Siefert, Janet [astrobiologist at Rice University]. "2015 NASA Astrobiology Debates - Interview with Jan Siefert by The George Washington University." Interview posted 10 Feb. 2016. http://www.nasadebates.org/siefert.php.

    Glaser, Sarah M. [fisheries ecologist and research associate at the One-Earth Future Foundation and the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver]. "2015 NASA Astrobiology Debates interview with Dr. Sarah M. Glaser." Interview posted 24 Aug. 2015. http://www.nasadebates.org/SarahGlaser.php.

    Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. “US Empire and the Project of Women’s Studies: Stories of citizenship, Complicity and Dissent,” Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 7–20, February 2006, http://www.englweb.umd.edu/englfac/KChuh/Mohanty,%20US%20Empire.pdf.

    Eckhardt, William. “Civilizations, Empires, and Wars,” Journal of Peace Research, February 1990, p. 15-16.

    Leeson-Schatz, Joe [Lecturer of English & Evolutionary Studies and board member for the Institute for Critical Animal Studies at Binghamton University]. "2015 NASA Astrobiology Debates Interview." Interview posted 18 Sept. 2015. http://www.nasadebates.org/JLS.php.

    Posted at May 4, 2016 02:26:31AM EST by Matt Coppola

    Citations

    Show

    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/>

    Wolfrum, Rüdiger. 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
    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/

    Treanor, Paul. "How Would You Feel, If a Million Soviet Troops Stormed Your Reich Capital?" How Would You Feel, If a Million Soviet Troops Stormed Your Reich Capital? N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.
    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/golden.rule.html

    Posted at May 4, 2016 10:43:13PM EST by Kirk Wu

    Citations

    Show

    Marina, Daniel. “Anthropocentrism and Androcentrism – An Ecofeminist Connection” http://www.projectsparadise.com/anthropocentrism-androcentrism

    Pournelle, Richard [Vice-President of Business Development at NanoRacks]. "NASA 2015 Debates Interview - Richard Pournelle by The George Washington University." Interview posted 25 Aug. 2015. http://www.nasadebates.org/Richard-Pournelle.php.

    George, Marie I. [Professor of Philosophy, St. John’s University]. "NASA Debate Interview Series - Marie I. George." Interview posted 3 Feb. 2016. http://www.nasadebates.org/Marie-George.php.

    Posted at May 6, 2016 01:04:43AM EST by Matt Coppola

    Citations

    Show

    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/>

    Wolfrum, Rüdiger. 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
    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/

    Treanor, Paul. "How Would You Feel, If a Million Soviet Troops Stormed Your Reich Capital?" How Would You Feel, If a Million Soviet Troops Stormed Your Reich Capital? N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.
    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/golden.rule.html

    Posted at May 7, 2016 04:11:16AM EST by Kirk Wu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 7, 2016 09:06:31PM EST by Chase Hutchinson

    Category Kirk Wu Matt Coppola
    Use of evidence: 5 4
    Delivery skill: 5 4.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.4 3.7
    Identification of key points: 5.6 4.5
    Comments: I think you change the framing that you are going for in your second speech which was a little annoying for a few reasons:

    1. The idea of your case taking place in a prefiat world is fine, but is not something I really hear you say in your 1st speech. You are more than open to do this, but I think that it is somewhat cheating to not make this clear until your second speech as that limits the amount of the objections (topicality, etc.) your opponent may have to this.

    2. This seems like it would be a link to anthro. Shifting your advocacy sounds like something that a colonial force would do to oppress others by effectively cheating them out of fair and equal treatment.

    However, your opponent doesn't say any of that and you are able to make it sound like your cards like Domanska discussing anthro in educational spaces made you exist in a prefiat so I consider this to be something you win on.

    Kicking the golden rule thing was probably strategic but I would have been very receptive to your opponent saying "would you like it if I just kicked a key part of my advocacy that you spent time addressing in your speech" because that doesn't seem very much in line with what you say the golden rule is.

    The biggest flaw in your argumentation seems to come from how you say that we shouldn't just use microbial life to help us but then say almost verbatim arguments like "we should preserve microbes to see how they use them (resources) so we can use them as well" which seems like a pretty human-centered type of impact calculus. This also seems to make you have one foot in post fiat world and one foot in pre fiat in ways that contradict your argumentation. I think you should just go hard for one of these arguments because they seem radically inconsistent.

    I think your root cause arguments are good (Leeson-Schatz extension was much better and clearer than the last round about what you meant about how classifications about why a human v. animal rationale is bad and justifies infinite violence etc.) but I still think there is probably a risk that you link in the ways detailed above to this root cause. This becomes especially true in your reversibility arguments. Irreversible harm seems like extinction, which would justify moving natives to reservations because it's not irreversible as they could maybe recover some parts of their past lives? I just think this is another point of contradiction that could have been pretty devastating for you.

    I think the sequencing disad is good but also see there being a lot of troubling arguments that could have been made about there being no link differential between you two for all of the same reasons about contradictions stated above. Still, you explain to me why this needs to be solved now, but I could have used more arguments about how engaging in a post fiated world is a form of sequencing that is bad to give this argument more weight.

    Your answer to the past doesn't matter about how the past is the best indicator of what will be replicated in the future was good but I could have used more warrants for this (I know there are many out there, but it still needs to be explicitly said in round) which would have made this argument stronger.

    You could have also used more explanations about your "continual extermination of the other" impact rather than just saying that tagline without more examples. I think one potential one would be to discuss factory farming and how that's bad.

    I think you need to do a better job explaining how your mindset shift or ethical reorientation is sufficient to solve. It really came up short for me on this and left you open for a lot of good arguments about how mindset shifts never work, especially in an online tournament where your video has like 4 views, 2 of which are mine, one of which is your opponents, and one is presumably yours. Don't really know whose mind you are changing in this prefiated world if no one sees what you are saying.

    Feel free to message me with any specific questions you may have.
    I think you hold your own on a lot of key issues but concede way too much for me to vote for you.

    You concede the framing/role of the ballot and never really reengage with it in the debate. I think you could have pointed out some ways they don't really solve for it either (see their comments for some specific examples) and may even make it worse.

    You also don't really explain to me what the opposition world looks like. We continue as is with the status quo, but what great benefits can we gain from space exploration? You tell me that drilling is necessary for space travel but don't answer the fundamental question about why space travel is important. You don't isolate any specific resources or tell me any specific plants that are viable for colonization. It makes me really struggle to look for a net benefit to the opposition world on the flow.

    I think your arguments about solvency make sense, and that you win that his international law would probably fail. However, you let him say that this is all about breaking down anthro through a mindset shift prefiat (which means before the impacts/plan hypothetically happens in this imagined game of debate, I can explain more of this if you want) which is the only real benefit I see clearly explained for either side. You have a lot of ground to call out whether this mindset shift really happens, especially in an online tournament where his videos have 4 views, 2 of which are mine, 1 of which is yours, and the other is presumably his. Whose mind is he changing here and why would that be good in this educational space?

    I think your phrasing of "some oppression is inevitable" sounds a little scary but I get what you're saying. You could say that in the "animal kingdom" we see hierarchies all over the place and this "coexistence of equal value" is a pretty human centric idea in the first place. Lions eat deer and that gives them the energy to continue to survive while also keeping the deer population in check. Giving some warrants about how humans meddling in this stuff by labeling some species as protected/endangered may disrupt this balance in ways that are bad that the affirmative would probably do. You are getting at this with the one argument about how we harm the ecosystem even more by trying to save individual lives (Joseph R was the card I think) but could be expanded a lot more. This would also serve as a pretty good argument to his sequencing DISAD by saying that sequencing is inevitable and to say otherwise is them being anthropogenic. Just spitballing a bit here, feel free to message me to discuss this strategy more.

    I think you need to call into question his root cause arguments specifically while also questioning root cause arguments at large more broadly. I would have been very receptive to arguments about how root cause arguments are pretty bad and erase the specificity of different people's oppressions (ie. a gay man of color has probably had a different experience than a white paralyzed woman who has probably had a different experience than microbial life on mars and we shouldn't treat them as exactly the same).

    Other than that, I really liked how you called out his solvency from the beginning and leveraged some key issues that were very persuasive. Unfortunately, the prop was just too far ahead on the line by line for me to go your way on a lot of key issues.

    Feel free to message me with any specific questions you may have.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Kirk Wu

    Reason for Decision:

    A lot of this is specifically detailed in the comments but my decision comes down to a few layers of the debate.

    Layer 1: How should I evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot?

    The prop gives better reasons about how I ought to vote for who best challenges anthro in educational spaces. All things considered, it is pretty clear that the prop is headed more in this general direction than the opposition. Even if I think there are some contradictions in their arguments, I don't know how the opp would want me to evaluate the round nor do I get a clear articulation about how they would solve better for anthro either.

    Layer 2: What are the impacts of the two advocacies assuming I am operating under an anti-anthro framework?

    The prop tells me that there will be a continual extermination of the other based on the way we distinguish between the human and animal. This seems pretty bad, and I never get any real specific impacts about how space exploration is key to solve any number of things.

    Layer 3: With these impacts in mind, which do I think outweighs?

    The prop does a sufficient enough job in their last speech pointing out how the opp doesn't do any significant weighing or prioritization making me see no other way to vote for anything but the plan that has a chance of preventing a continual extermination of the other.

    Feel free to message me with any specific questions you may have.


    1 Comment

    Congratulations on 1st place Kirk and thanks for this round. I've learned a lot from it and there's no shame in losing to someone who I can assume is much more experienced than me. In all, this was a great round and all of it was worth it, even being up at 3:00 A.M. trying to figure out what the difference between anthropocentrism and biocentrism is. In all, I learned a lot of things including what the term "fiat" means, which not knowing did not help me for this round, and how to flow spreading. Thank you Kirk for this amazing round and thank you Mr. Hutchinson for judging and for your very insightful comments. This was an amazing experience.

    Thanks,
    Matt Coppola - Matt Coppola on May 8, 2016 at 12:50PM EST

    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