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: Kentaro Iwase (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Jessica Mandeville (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.

  • Kentaro Iwase
    Kentaro Iwase
    vs.



    Jessica Mandeville
    Jessica Mandeville
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2017 03:37:30AM EST by Kentaro Iwase

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2017 08:50:57PM EST by Jessica Mandeville

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 26, 2017 08:21:33AM EST by Kentaro Iwase

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 27, 2017 06:35:42PM EST by Jessica Mandeville

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2017 04:08:58AM EST by Kentaro Iwase

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 28, 2017 10:39:26AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Kentaro Iwase Jessica Mandeville
    Use of evidence: 3.3 3
    Delivery skill: 3.8 3.4
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.2 3.8
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.3
    Comments: You should also give your cites when providing your links so your opponents can look at them. It would also add credibility to your speech. Your opening speech is good on the impact level but light on the solvency level. How does voting for the proposition help solve these problems? You could also do a better job getting to the terminal impacts of your observations. Who cares about benefiting the host country's economy? What's the impact? Economy in of itself is not an impact.

    You do a good job answering your opponent's arguments. You need to make sure you spend more time at the onset extending our initial case and framing the ballot. Again, it would be great if I could go to your WSJ evidence and compare to your opponent's (or lack thereof). At minimum, you should make an argument as to why I should prefer your evidence to your opponent. I'd also suggest arguing utilitarianism bad when extending your liberty advantage. If you win that argument there is nothing the opp has that outweighs since it's all utilitarian-based.
    It would be good to provide citations in addition to your youtube link when submitting. You should do a better job at weighing out the terminal impacts and leveraging where your primary offense is. Ie why does econ shocks turn the economy scenario of the prop, and why does it outweigh their liberty advantage? If you're going to have a radicalization turn, you should also explain why this utilitarian impact outweighs the opposition.

    Use all your speech time! In this format when the prop has three speeches to your two, the length of speeches is how the sides are equalized. Frame the ballot with your impacts. Compare your evidence to your opponent instead of just saying he doesn't have evidence. At minimum, go back to your evidence and extend it for me.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Kentaro Iwase

    Reason for Decision:

    Both sides could do a better job at framing the ballot and identifying the key points of the round. Both sides could also benefit from evidence comparison and referencing back the evidence you do use in prior speeches.

    Ultimately, the opp wins that refugees might not get everything they want when they migrate I don't know why that is a reason to negate given that it is still their right to be able to move freely as per the prop's argument. The opp's opening speech with security and detailed economy turns could have been the reason to negate but in your closing speech you back off of those claims and you don't really spend anytime weighing them. You need to increase the depth in that closing speech versus just pointing out a bunch of objections. At the same time, without a detailed response to the aff's rebuttal that cited evidence defending the economy scenario and answering the security scenario I think there is only a risk that voting for the prop could make things better. The prop could have done a better job picking a single reason for me to vote and collapsing to that one argument... then weighing it against the opp's arguments. However, I think that the prop is doing a slightly better job at that the opp is which is why I vote the way I do.


    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