Judge: Cate Morrison (University of Rhode Island)
Resolution: This house believes that the borders of nation-states should not prevent the movement of refugees.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 17, 2017 10:21:19PM EST by Jake Gorham
Ewing, Walter. "Human Rights Abuses Along U.S.-Mexico Border Underscore Need for Reform." Immigration Impact. Immigration Impact, 31 Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee. "Border Repression and Human Rights." Alliance for Global Justice. Alliance For Global Justice, 11 Feb. [in] 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Roth, JD. "Warren Buffett on the Lottery of Birth." Get Rich Slowly. N.p., 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. .
Miles-Mojab, Donna. "Donna Miles-Mojab: Refugees and the Lottery of Life." NZ Herald, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 4 Oct. 2015. .
Posted at April 18, 2017 07:49:16PM EST by Nanami Saito
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 20, 2017 02:15:54AM EST by Jake Gorham
I have listed my citations in my previous speech.
Posted at April 21, 2017 12:47:24AM EST by Nanami Saito
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 21, 2017 11:24:02AM EST by Jake Gorham
I have no new evidence in my final speech.
Great round! It was great being able to debate you! Thank you for debating! Also, thank you for your time judge!
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 23, 2017 12:49:03PM EST by Cate Morrison
|Category||Jake Gorham||Nanami Saito|
|Use of evidence:||3.8||3.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.7||3.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.1||3.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.2||3.7|
|Comments:||A little too much in the opening case--the arguments about limiting access to medication and education as well as other social services is more or less asserted. The middle speech is very good! You both give comprehensive, well-developed answers to the opposition, while also rebuilding and extending the arguments from your opening speech. I think the closing speech is well-executed, explaining that people are made most vulnerable if borders are closed.||Your case is smart and well-composed in the opening speech. A little response to the proposition arguments, however, would help build your case. One way to do this is to find places in your opening argument where you can refer to the government. For example: "The proposition says that the judge should decide based on which side best protects human rights. I argue that encouraging migrancy only puts people at greater risk, in terms of human rights abuses." Or "My opponent talks about the lottery of birth--I think that these differences are most important when we think about refugees, because refugees are people who have already lost and thus are most vulnerable to exploitation." You make this argument in the closing speech very well. To win this round, give me a sense of why maintaining a system of closed borders is better in terms of human rights.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Jake Gorham
Reason for Decision:
I thought this was a very good debate. Each side had a clear position and followed through. The proposition argues that as a judge, my highest priority should be assessing human rights. The opposition agrees, and argues that if we encourage migrants by opening borders, we create a population of people who are most vulnerable to exploitation. Ultimately, I think that the proposition side does a better job explaining how the problems highlighted by the opposition are made worse by closed borders, and that the alternative of keeping people in place would be worse because they are fleeing conditions of extreme deprivation. Thus, while I think that the opposition is right that refugees will be exploited, I think the forces that enable that exploitation are made worse by closed borders