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: Ee Hsiun Chong (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Davey Schrader (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.

  • Ee Hsiun Chong
    Ee Hsiun Chong
    vs.



    Davey Schrader
    Davey Schrader
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 1, 2017 09:44:44AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong

    Citations

    Show

    Mark Bixler & Michael Martinez, 04/18/2016 (CNN, “War forced half of all Syrians from home. Here’s where they went.”, d/l: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/11/world/syria-refugee-crisis-when-war-displaces-half-a-country/)

    Eleanor Albert, 01/12/2017 ([Online Writer/Editor], Council on Foreign Relations, “The Rohingya Migrant Crisis”, d/l: http://www.cfr.org/burmamyanmar/rohingya-migrant-crisis/p36651)

    Global Conflict Tracker, 04/14/2017 (Council on Foreign Relations, “Civil War in South Sudan”, d/l: http://www.cfr.org/global/global-conflict-tracker/p32137#!/conflict/civil-war-in-south-sudan)

    Migration and Home Affairs, 04/17/2017 (European Commission, “Common European Asylum System”, d/l: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum_en)

    Elisabeth Behrmann & Naomi Kresge, 09/15/2015 (Bloomberg, “Germany’s Big Automakers See Opportunities From Integrating Migrants”, d/l: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/daimler-s-zetsche-channels-silicon-valley-integrating-migrants)

    Al-Jazeera, 02/04/2017 (Al-Jazeera, “Hundred of Rohingyas killed in Myanmar crackdown”, d/l: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/rohingyas-killed-myanmar-crackdown-170203101817841.html)


    Posted at May 3, 2017 12:49:30AM EST by Davey Schrader

    Citations

    Show

    All URLs provided are not hyperlinked. Please use copy and paste. I do not have full citations, but I believe that it would be easier for us all to have direct access to the evidence that I have used.

    Case text here:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cP0JODL1UCO7IOOclL8Wf80vcMt79IUYnWLWmUflTTg/edit?usp=sharing

    Here are my sources:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13194723

    http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

    If the sound is bad. Here is the written verison of the rebuttal.
    My opponent establishes it as a nation's duty to either take in refugees or to provide them safe passage to another nation. This is a duty that must be seconded only by a nation’s duty to protect its own citizens. It is only logical that a nation should protect its citizens before anything else. I do believe that we should take in refugees, but not to the point of unrestrained altruism. That is why I proposed the counterplan. It takes in refugees while using minimal border control to guarantee safety for all people possible. That prioritizes the duties properly while still carrying through with both.

    My opponent mentions a screening process to be used in his speech. This is important, write this down. To propose is to remove all border control for refugees. Any hindrance in their movement is prevention of it, even if only temporary. This means that if there is any level of border control for refugees, no matter how small, you oppose. The screening will have to be removed and safety still proven if you are to propose this round.

    My opponent’s main argument is about human rights and the lottery of life. It is arbitrary where a human is born. The two options my opponent provides are let the refugees suffer or give them a better life. They will be killed if they are trapped in their country. Let’s take a third. Prevent suffering, give them safety, and protect ourselves by opposing. Opposing does not mean doing nothing. It means doing something more safe than proposing to help these refugees. The counterplan is some minimalistic immigration control, fit for people prosecuted as much as refugees, that allows for the safety of as many as possible. I will put it simply. Would you let strangers into your home because they have a right to shelter, or would you rather establish some level of trust with them first? The latter is the idea of the opposition.

    Nations can improve the lives of the refugees that enter them, and these nations are prosperous. Saving refugees should not involve risking terrorism. As we saw with Schengen, free movement leads to crime or terrorism, and both are bad impacts. With borders open to refugees, and thus people who can convince others that they are a refugee, we allow terrorists to get in, an unacceptable risk. The counterplan does not allow for that risk deriving from open borders.

    My last statement is that my opponent only argues about how helping refugees is good, but not how opening borders is the best way to do that. This is why you will vote opp. If all that is needed is helping refugees, which my counterplan is intended to do. You have no reason to help refugees by opening the borders, given all the risks and harms that would arise from doing as much. You have no reason to open borders when my opponent does not advocate for that. You have every reason to oppose and enact the counterplan when it can help refugees and protect us.

    I strongly urge an opposition vote.

    Posted at May 3, 2017 10:57:05AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong

    Citations

    Show

    UNHCR, 01/25/2017 (UN Refugee Agency, “Refugee Status Determination”, d/l: http://www.unhcr.org/refugee-status-determination.html)

    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 12/01/2010 (UNHCR, “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees”, page 14, d/l: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10)

    European Parliament & The Council of the European Union, 04/30/2004 (Official Journal of the European Union, “Directive 2004/38/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council”, d/l: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF)

    Posted at May 4, 2017 11:30:47AM EST by Davey Schrader

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prevent
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hinder?s=t
    https://books.google.com/books?id=20pg76wmAucC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=%E2%80%9CGood+liars+are+those+people:+(i)+whose+natural+behaviour+disarms+suspicion;+(ii)+who+do+not+find+it+cognitively+difficult+to+lie;+and+(iii)+who+do+not+experience+emotions+such+as+fear,+guilt,+or+duping+delight+when+they+are+lying%E2%80%9D+(Vrij,+2008,+p.+378).&source=bl&ots=weuofnGfei&sig=Gl2TOZFUCPD_RKSfegjbFLtRizc &hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWspSiv9XTAhXijlQKHUbDAIIQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
    From "Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities" by Aldert Vrij

    Message me before Friday 03:30PM MST if you want a written version of my speech messaged to you. I might be able to send the speech after that, but it wil be less likely that I can by then

    Posted at May 5, 2017 09:51:15AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong

    Citations

    Show

    Janet Phillips, 01/14/2011 (Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia, “Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts?”, page 3, d/l: http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf)

    English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 04/01/2017 (Oxford University Press, “Prevent”, d/l: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prevent)

    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 12/01/2010 (UNHCR, “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees”, page 14, d/l: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10)

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 7, 2017 07:15:54PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Ee Hsiun Chong Davey Schrader
    Use of evidence: 4.6 4.1
    Delivery skill: 5 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.5 4.1
    Identification of key points: 4.8 4.3
    Comments: You are rhetorically powerful on giving a face to the refugee crisis. However, it would be even better if you backed that up with a philosopher who allowed me to vote on a moral obligation to help in the face of the Other (Levinas would be my pick). I really like that you clearly outline what voting for the prop advocates in relation to proper screening, resettlement or safe passage, etc. It really helps to narrow the round. I do *not* think "consequentialism" should be the moral framework that you should use because then it allows the opp to object based upon utilitarian grounds... which gives up the rhetorical abilities you have to get people to care about the suffering of refugees.

    I think that counter-plans should be allowed within debate because I think otherwise you risk stale yes/no debates. Your argument on the counter-plan in terms of internal and external EU borders is a great one against this counter-plan. You should explain why the the counter-plan isn't an opportunity cost to the prop (that you can do both at the same time, which is called a "permutation" in policy debate).

    Great job responding to the terminology, then going to lay person understanding, then extending your analysis of someone returning home through border control
    You are pretty good with speed but could use some more clarity drills. I don't think you need to slow down and you can probably get faster. Just make sure you continue to focus on clarity. I really like the clear introduction of the three plank counter-plan along with solvency. I do think that you could do a better job at impacting out terrorism. Why does terrorism outweigh refugee rights for instance. You could also do a better job at explaining why the counter-plan is mutually exclusive with the prop, which already includes screening, etc. For instance, the prop does not advocate an end to all border control whatsoever.

    I like your use of defining "prevent," to justify the existence of your counter-plan. At the same time, even if he doesn't have border control, he can still have secure vetting process and transport I think. At some point you need to weigh the impact risk of terrorism to the current suffering of refugees. You don't have a 100% risk that opening borders means I die, but there is a risk. Weigh the plausible risk level.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Ee Hsiun Chong

    Reason for Decision:

    I think the prop can reasonably defend a vetting process, this is because I prefer the Oxford definition to the Dictionary.com definition and because of the dropped analogy of the returning citizen through border control doesn't mean they are prevented from returning home. Once I grant this, I think that the prop solves the majority of the risks that the opp brings up. However, this still leaves the question of terrorists getting in which is an inevitable consequence if they are such good liars. In this world the prop still does a better job at weighing a 100% certainty of refugees who are dying versus a risk of host countries being vulnerable to a terrorist attack, which has a smaller probability. Ultimately, either the prop's vetting is good enough to prevent the risk or terrorists are too good at lying anyhow so nothing is going to solve for that.


    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