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: sophia kitano (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Maren Feltman (Wood River High School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that the borders of nation-states should not prevent the movement of refugees.

  • sophia kitano
    sophia kitano
    vs.



    Maren Feltman
    Maren Feltman
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 07:22:16PM EST by sophia kitano

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2017 07:58:25PM EST by Maren Feltman

    Citations

    Show

    "Why Is EU Struggling with Migrants and Asylum?" BBC News. BBC, 03 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Zeigler, Karen, and Steven A. Camarota. "The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees." Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 03 Nov. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

    Chambers 1986

    Posted at April 20, 2017 09:19:08AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2017 11:25:26PM EST by Maren Feltman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2017 02:42:25AM EST by sophia kitano

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 23, 2017 09:46:47PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category sophia kitano Maren Feltman
    Use of evidence: 3.5 4.7
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.4 4.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 3.5
    Identification of key points: 5 3.4
    Comments: You should post cites for your speech so we can check the quality of your sources. You also do a good job clearly creating your individual contentions. I would suggest giving a more terminal impact to your scenarios though. Ie explain why we have a moral obligation to reject child marriage / humane treatment of refugees. This will help outweigh the utilitarian security impacts most opp team's talk about.

    Don't just reconstruct your initial speech. Explain why those points wins you the ballot. What does it mean to vote prop versus opp (the status-quo). Also, please provide your cites when you submit your speech if possible. Good job directly responding to your opponent's points. However, I would suggest also making an indict of the opp's sources and give me a reason to prefer yours. Lastly, more directly weigh your impacts against the opp.
    I like how you start out by defining terms within the resolution like refugees. I also like that you provide cites for us to look up. "Chambers 1986" is a little vague, but it's better than most people have provided. You also do a pretty good job at getting into the specific costs of resettlement as well. I would suggest maybe having some sort of counter advocacy though instead of having your entire opposition being an impact turn to the resolution and a defense of the status-quo. You do a good job with it, but in an opening constructive a diversified approach is sometimes better... then collapse in your closing speech. I'd also get around to answering the prop's arguments sooner and doing more than just cross-applying your analysis. Answer the sources referenced verbally or make an indict saying that sources aren't provided and that I should prefer your evidence as a result.

    Start your speech off with why I should vote for you, not just random responses to random things. I think you're behind on economic benefits. If you are going to win "job loss" you should win that native jobs are key to the economy or native jobs more important that national GDP growth. Otherwise, it seems like economic growth outweighs native job growth. Get to the terminal impact. Your aid argument could make for a good counter advocacy argument. Frame that clearly in your opening. "If we can concentrate the money..." But how do we concentrate that money? It's not happening in the status-quo. A counter-plan is the answer in debate.

    The decision is for the Proposition: sophia kitano

    Reason for Decision:

    The prop does a much better job in the closing speech at weighing out the impacts (ie economy versus job growth) and contextualizing why it is better to open the borders than have the status-quo. There is no understanding of what an opposition ballot means, and the prop does a better job of framing the ballot of meaning either it's the world we got (with current aid) or a potentially better world. Given this there's no reason reason not to affirm. Better contextualization of what it means to vote for the opp would help me in negating.


    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