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: Ayane Nagaishi (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Petra Glenn (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.

  • Ayane Nagaishi
    Ayane Nagaishi
    vs.



    Petra Glenn
    Petra Glenn
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 12:14:48PM EST by Ayane Nagaishi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2017 09:56:28PM EST by Petra Glenn

    Citations

    Show

    https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2016/12/27/europe-reaping-what-it-sowed-with-open-borders-policy-for-muslim-refugees-n2263851

    Posted at April 20, 2017 01:17:55AM EST by Ayane Nagaishi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2017 11:09:13PM EST by Petra Glenn

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2017 02:46:47AM EST by Ayane Nagaishi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 23, 2017 09:23:01PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Ayane Nagaishi Petra Glenn
    Use of evidence: 3.4 3.4
    Delivery skill: 3.8 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.4
    Identification of key points: 4.2 3.8
    Comments: You should provide your cites in the cite box instead of just verbally referencing them. Good job dividing your points up between your main contentions. You should do more in creating a terminal impact to your arguments (ie child labor into a moral imperative) so you can be ready to weigh it against the more utilitarian impacts most opp's have been going for.

    Again, I would love to see your cites. If possible, also try to record in an area where it is quieter. I think you are easy to hear and have a great speed of delivery but the echo and background noise sometimes get in the way. Good job in answering terrorism threats, and defending your initial contentions point by point. It doesn't seem like you have an answer to her nation-state kritik of the resolution though.

    Great job starting your speech of with framing your impacts. However, you need to get around to answering your opponents unique argument about the term "nation-state."
    I would urge you to find better sources to use than what you quote in your cite box. I would also recommend citing more authors and evidence, especially when you are giving statistics. Where do these come from? I do like your argument about the way the resolution is worded. I would suggest making it more clear as either a procedural argument or as a kritik. This would help to contextualize why I would vote on this as an argument instead of it being a FYI about nation-states. It also seems like the prop ballot would solve for refugees only being stuck in nearby other war-torn countries. Your unrealistic argument might make sense as a response if you flesh it out more as a solvency press.

    In regards to terrorist threats you need to have a better response to the prop. She provides numbers on the actual risk of refugees committing acts of terrorism, whereas you just rely on the construction of threats. You should counter with sources and evidence on this point. In regards to your nation-state question you need to frame the impact more beyond that it "is a huge problem amongst the resolution itself." Why is this a reason to vote against them? Is it just a reason why the prop might not solve? Frame your arguments more offensively so I can understand why I would pull the trigger. What is the "abuse of ambiguous words"?

    The decision is for the Opposition: Petra Glenn

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition wins the impact level of this debate. It is better to open borders for reasons of child trafficking and the economy over the threat to security for the reasons explained in my comments above. HOWEVER, the proposition never answers in either speech the opposition's argument about the term "nation-state" in the resolution. While I think this argument should have been impacted out more, I think at minimum the proposition needs to explain why the opposition doesn't do this work or why it doesn't matter. In short, the opp wins a procedural argument that the term "nation-state" in the resolution is vague and open to abuse, so the resolution should be negated on that ground (not because of anything to do with refugees). A simple argument to not let semantics to get in the way of the more important discussion could have caused me to vote for the proposition. Or that the term "nation-state" is clear enough. Or that given the international nature of this tournament we should debate the spirit of the resolution and not the precise terms. However, there was no answer and it was in both of the opp's speeches.


    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