Jump to content
binghamtondebate

Public Debate featuring Captain Paul Watson & Bill Shanahan

Recommended Posts

Check out this amazing public debate between the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and the Institute for Critical Animal Studies(ICAS) on the topic of whether the law should be the preferred avenue to advance environmental conservation and animal rights. The SSCS is represented by Captain Paul Watson and Brandon Evans who are affirming that the law should be the preferred avenue. ICAS is represented by Bill Shanahan and Trevor Reddick who negate the topic from an anarchist indigenous perspective. The public debate is followed by a speech by Paul Watson and public Q&A. An amazing watch that's worth your time watching without a doubt!


Check it out athttp://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Videos/Debates/Public/113/2013-2014-public-debates/speaker-captain-paul-watson/


  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Shanahan was awful. I got through cross of the 1NC and he was so rude and so shrill

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Shanahan was awful. I got through cross of the 1NC and he was so rude and so shrill

 

He's got a Gilbert Gottfried thing kinda going on in his 1NC. But really, his presentation isn't winning him any favors. I think his work on why the state is bad isn't very analytical, either. Some warrants, but not very many. Captain Paul Watson comes off as far more reasonable. But I'm only on the cx of the 1NC so far.

 

Also this 2AC is really, really good. Very articulate, it's in plain language, but still employs common debate ideas and even terms in an understandable way (perhaps "cede the political" could be phrased differently).

Edited by dancon25
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's got a Gilbert Gottfried thing kinda going on in his 1NC. But really, his presentation isn't winning him any favors. I think his work on why the state is bad isn't very analytical, either. Some warrants, but not very many. Captain Paul Watson comes off as far more reasonable. But I'm only on the cx of the 1NC so far.

 

Also this 2AC is really, really good. Very articulate, it's in plain language, but still employs common debate ideas and even terms in an understandable way (perhaps "cede the political" could be phrased differently).

I stopped after the cross of the 1NC since I ran out of listening time - it may have gotten better after (and I didn't see the 2AC). I'm not surprised though, Brandon is an excellent, all-American debater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only the 1ar, but i think the negative's position is internally contradictory and is focusing on lot on the equivalent of "tag-line" extensions and not fully fleshing out their ideas.  For example, they keep mentioning that aff has to win that the state is the preferred method not a good method but they don't give any brightline to what exactly "preferred" means and contextualizing what offense that specifically avoids.  I also think they keep switching from epistemology argument to method arguments without tying it together and often contradict themselves by saying "your measurements of success are flawed b/c they exclude indigenous perspectives" and then in the next breath say "we agree we should shave the whales, just disagree how".

 

I'll write out a more fully fleshed response after i've finished the debate

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it worth watching anymore? 

after the 2nc its just (very brief) closing statements and then questions that i haven't watched yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, they keep mentioning that aff has to win that the state is the preferred method not a good method but they don't give any brightline to what exactly "preferred" means and contextualizing what offense that specifically avoids. 

 

 

I think you raise an interesting point.

 

Isn't the default meaning of that phrase pretty much either:

1) utilitarianism

2) comparative advantage

 

Plus those arguments happen at another level very possibly:

 

1) the criteria is a comparison of benefits

2) we win the comparison

 

Perhaps the connections could be more direct, but I'm not sure the failure to leave out that makes it a bad argument (particularly in light of the criticisms of the neg. above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...