Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: This house believes that the borders of nation-states should not prevent the movement of refugees.
 Owen Ruggeri |
vs.
|
hideyuki tanaka |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 25, 2017 08:27:12AM EST by hideyuki tanaka
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 27, 2017 01:31:16AM EST by Owen Ruggeri
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-addiction/drug-trafficking-by-the-numbers/
Posted at April 28, 2017 06:02:47AM EST by hideyuki tanaka
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 30, 2017 06:36:24PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
| Category | Owen Ruggeri | hideyuki tanaka |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Delivery skill: | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 4 | 4 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 3.8 | 4 |
| Identification of key points: | 3.6 | 4.5 |
| Comments: | I like that you start out by stating the difference between a refugee and an immigrant. I'd get a jump on the morality versus utilitarian debate and indict utilitarianism as a basis for action. I'd also recommend answering realism as a guiding principle for international relations theory. Also, what's the terminal impact to the economy? Who cares if the economy increases? I would also recommend providing citations instead of just mentioning them verbally. That was you can make comparative evidence claims later on in the round. I would suggest creating a greater diversity of answers to each of the opposition's arguments. You mostly make one response and move on. That makes it easy for the opp to collapse to any argument they decide to. I think you should make a xenophobia argument against the opp's refugees will rape people argument. You can also weigh your morality contention against that as well. You need to start weighing your impacts in this speech and collapsing to your main points instead of just going tit for tat. You also drop the counter-planish argument that I reference in my opp notes (and likely my ballot below). Your answer that "people are dying where they are" doesn't assume a world where the opp is advocating opening borders of nation's closer who can adequately provide assistance. Your argument that those areas are also in chaos seem new to me, and doesn't answer the opp's argument "how can the refugees get to the United States in the first place?" When you don't have an answer to that, the only explanation in the round is that refugees would need to use those same smugglers. |
Frame the ballot at the onset. What does voting for you mean? Don't let an opp ballot just mean the status-quo. I think you do better than most in explaining how opening borders might increase violence via legal channels of immigration. However, I do think this scenario could still be turned somewhat easily given current smuggling trends. It would be nice if you had provided cites so you can make evidence comparison against your opponent. I like your responses to your prop's contentions. I also like your "we should focus on the areas that need it closer to Syria" argument. I would suggest making it a more formalized counter-plan. Good job starting out with your focus on where the problem is argument. Extending that clearly at the start really helps me understand what it means to vote for the opp. Make sure you do that more in your opening as well. I wish you focused on this argument more during the middle and end of your speech as well. It could easily win you the round (especially since it went dropped). Make it the main focus of the debate since it's the offense you have in the round. You tend to focus too much on your defensive arguments. |
The decision is for the Opposition: hideyuki tanaka
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opp since I believe the opp wins that opening borders and providing targeted assistance is better than just everywhere since there is no means for Syrian refugees to just relocate to the United States. The prop could advocate a specific mechanism on how the migration could happen as part of your affirmation. I also think the answers to this argument develop late in the debate (mostly in your final speech) and largely goes dropped in your rebuttal speech. Given that the opp doesn't have another speech to respond I err to protect the opp on allowing some of the new articulations. However, even given that as I not in the opp's comments, there are unanswered questions on the value of opening borders generically versus in a targeted and more proximate way.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
