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: Sakasai Sora (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Benjamin Goh (Yale-NUS College)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Sakasai Sora
    Sakasai Sora
    vs.



    Benjamin Goh
    Benjamin Goh
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 04:26:24AM EST by Sakasai Sora

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 10:32:22PM EST by Benjamin Goh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 19, 2017 12:54:32PM EST by Sakasai Sora

    Citations

    Show

    The Washington Post:
    https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/europe/central-european-countries-resist-new-eu-refugee-quota-proposal/2016/05/04/5be5a32c-120e-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

    Posted at April 20, 2017 12:47:02PM EST by Benjamin Goh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2017 05:17:54AM EST by Sakasai Sora

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 21, 2017 03:11:53PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Sakasai Sora Benjamin Goh
    Use of evidence: 3.6 3.5
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.3 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4.5
    Comments: You should provide the cites in the cite box when submitting your video, instead of just saying it in your speech. I think you do a good job explaining the dangers of current conditions. You also do a good job showing the magnitude of the problem. I think you could do a better job showing the human face of the problem / why it morally matters versus just the utilitarian focus.

    You do a good job responding to a bunch of the opposition's individual objections. I would suggest doing more in framing what a opp ballot means (the status-quo) and why that's bad. Tell a larger story about the debate instead of just only going point-by-point. I also think you need to answer more directly the moral obligations versus moral duty argument. You get close to answering it at points and I could extrapolate some of the things you say as answers, but you should be doing that work more.
    I like your distinction between moral obligation and moral duty. You are framing a lot of your arguments more defensively than you should be. Frame your arguments offensively / as a reason for why you should win instead of just as a reason why the prop might be wrong about a single point.

    I like how you start out your speech with what the ballot means and how I should approach judging the round. I would suggest taking some of your arguments and more explicitly framing it as a counter-plan so you can have an easier time explaining how voting for you creates a more sustainable option (which isn't the same as voting for the status-quo).

    The decision is for the Opposition: Benjamin Goh

    Reason for Decision:

    This is a good debate overall. Ultimately, I vote for the opposition because of the moral obligation vs duty distinction. The prop begins closing speech with the fact that the opp drops moral obligation. However, that argument isn't dropped. Rather, the argument is that we should accept a duty (because it's good to do) versus as an obligation (because it has to be done). Forcing an opening of borders as a moral obligation (instead of duty) it causes more resentment by host countries, increasing the likelihood for abuse and backlash. By taking it as a duty (and therefore not a forced obligation) individuals can better understand why opening the borders is a good idea, which could produce a more sustainable solution for the crisis. So, in short, the prop is right that the opp is agreeing with a bunch of your points. However, where they disagree is on the solution. The opp wins the better solution is not to view the opening of borders as a moral obligation because of the consequential impact of forcing people to accept in refugees. Again, very good 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