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: Aidan Burchmore (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Kana Shoji (Shorin Global)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Aidan Burchmore
    Aidan Burchmore
    vs.



    Kana Shoji
    Kana Shoji
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2017 07:07:41PM EST by Aidan Burchmore

    Citations

    Show

    UC Davis 2016:
    https://phys.org/news/2016-06-refugees-economic-boost-host-countries.html
    Braw 2016: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/07/syrian-doctors-are-saving-german-lives-problem-refugee-crisis/?scrlybrkr=121aa9c8#

    Posted at April 25, 2017 11:03:54AM EST by Kana Shoji

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 26, 2017 11:58:23PM EST by Aidan Burchmore

    Citations

    Show

    Rueckert 2017:
    https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/these-are-the-facts-on-refugees-and-crime/

    Posted at April 28, 2017 05:55:35AM EST by Kana Shoji

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2017 11:17:39AM EST by Aidan Burchmore

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 28, 2017 08:57:42PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Aidan Burchmore Kana Shoji
    Use of evidence: 4 3.3
    Delivery skill: 3.8 3.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.6 3.8
    Identification of key points: 4.3 3.9
    Comments: I like how you start by defining the resolution and the ballot via cost/benefit (I'd call it utilitarianism more explicitly though). I would also provide cites for all the evidence your cite in your speech instead of just one. I would urge you to get to the terminal implications of your contentions though (ie who cares about the economy? Impact it out). I like your doctors scenario. It's something unique and different that I haven't seen others do before.

    Good job highlighting the ballot framing at the start with cost-benefit analysis. Also good job attacking the lack of sources from them opposition side. Make sure that you answer her semi-counter-plan arguments that could morph into something more formal in her second speech. Frame what the opp ballot means instead of just focusing on what I get with a prop ballot.
    As I said in your last round, I would suggest giving citations along with your youtube link when you submit so we can get to a more in-depth debate. I would also recommend contextualizing the ballot more and explaining what an opp ballot means (especially in light of the fact that refugee movement is in the status-quo). It seems like a good number of your objections to refugee immigration is made worse by criminalizing refugee migration. A counter-plan would be a good option to help solve this problem. You have some sentences where you say there are better alternatives and ideas. It would be good if you actually advocated for one of them so at the end of the debate you can say voting for the opp isn't voting for the status-quo but rather a secure vetting process to helps ensure safe relocation for refugees versus just opening borders.

    Lead with your offense and why I should vote for you instead of just responding to their objections. Also, if possible, try to find a quieter place to record since there's someone talking in the background which makes it hard to focus on what you're saying. Also I'm confused by your smuggling argument since it seems that opening borders would make it less likely for smuggling from taking place. Why would legal migration make it worse?

    The decision is for the Proposition: Aidan Burchmore

    Reason for Decision:

    The opp needs to do a better job at framing the ballot. This can be done by either explaining what it means to vote for the opp (or a c/p) or by weighing out your impacts. Why is the risk of increased smuggling more important than economy or doctors? I'm also not sure why smuggling will get worse when borders open up since then migration can happen legally and would be safer than the status-quo. On some of the substance questions (like refugees using resources) I err prop on these questions since he cites evidence, points out the opp doesn't have evidence, and also warrants out his spread out argument more. Overall, good job to both side. The prop wins by giving better contextualization of how I should judge the round and on the question of evidence. Better impact analysis really could be used by both sides however.


    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