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: 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.

  • Ee Hsiun Chong
    Ee Hsiun Chong

    Jessica Mandeville
    Jessica Mandeville
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 11:44:02AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong



    Mark Bixler & Michael Martinez, 04/18/2016, CNN, “War forced half of all Syrians from home. Here’s where they went.”, d/l:

    Eleanor Albert[Online Writer/Editor], 01/12/2017, Council on Foreign Relations, “The Rohingya Migrant Crisis”, d/l:”

    Global Conflict Tracker, 04/14/2017, Council on Foreign Relations, “Civil War in South Sudan”, d/l:!/conflict/civil-war-in-south-sudan

    Migration and Home Affairs, 04/17/2017, European Commission, “Common European Asylum System”, d/l:

    Elisabeth Behrmann & Naomi Kresge, 09/15/2015, Bloomberg, “Germany’s Big Automakers See Opportunities From Integrating Migrants”, d/l:

    Posted at April 18, 2017 11:52:58AM EST by Jessica Mandeville



    Here is my case:
    This house does not believe that the borders of nation-states should not prevent the movement of refugees.
    (1. National security)
    National Security is a priority that has existed ever since separate nations was created. One of the first duties of our government is to protect citizens.
    (1a. Economic protection)

    If we take on all of these refugees, what is the economic cost? If refugees enter the economy, jobs are taken by these non-citizens and actual country-born citizens lose jobs.
    An example of this economic burden is seen in the country Jordan. The discussion of economic impact was addressed in the US News:

    Jordan’s government has also spent $168 million on basic health services for refugees. Available figures regarding infrastructure costs indicate that some $62 million per year is needed to cover the additional demand derived from the influx of Syrian refugees. These infrastructure investments are mainly related to the provision of municipal services, such as access to running water, connections to the power grid, and road maintenance and construction. The funding needed in response to the influx of refugees as percentage of Jordan’s budget reached around 35 percent in 2015.
    (Economic Impacts Of)
    In addition, there are at least five other strained parts of the economy as seen in Jordan:
    Funding needed for schools
    Health services for refugees
    Sudden budgetary shocks which weakens the country
    Cost of border refugee camps
    Pressure on local labor markets

    (1b. Unrealized Refugee dreams)

    Refugees often become radicalized when their ‘dream land’ of America does not match up with the real world. They leave everything behind: their Identity, their home, their possessions and families. As stated in the US News:

    They very well may become radicalized because it won't be the paradise they thought it would be," says Robert Milton, a former commander of London's Metropolitan Police Service. "They think once they're in the U.K. or once they're in Europe, everything will be fine. And it won't. They'll face years and years of hardship and poverty. They'll get a lot of support from our countries, but they'll still struggle."

    "What it means is in two, three, four, five years' time, we may have some real problems within these communities – people within [our borders will] pose a real threat to us.
    (Security Concerns Surround)
    (1c. Radicalization)
    The more refugees that we let into our country, the greater the chance that their ideas may radicalize our population. For instance in Belgium, the terrorists who bombed Paris, came from an area that was heavily Syrian and described as a “breeding ground for Jihadists.” It is also discussed in The Washington Times. As stated in the paper:

    The Islamic State has planned to infect refugee flows to the West with mass killers, and it has had some violent successes.

    The CIA said last year that the terrorist group’s official strategy is to hide its operatives among refugees entering Europe and the United States via human flows out of the Middle East and North Africa.

    (ISIS Finds Success)

    These arguments show the threat that letting refugees into our country poses. These threats are both to our physical and economical safety.

    On to the prop case. We are not un-humanitarian, we are valuing our citizens as equal, not as a power house. Each country has problems of their own, that if we do not fix, it will keep us from accepting ANYONE. Borders have been put in place for a reason. The prop case does not take into account that we cannot simply accept refugees, and that the world cannot be one big happy family - too many groups would not be represented. The more borders are dissolved, the more unrest it creates. If refugees can move through countries freely, as the prop case suggested, who else will do the same? It is the terrorist group ISIS’ plan to infect refugee flows with operatives. We already have examples:
    San Bernardino, California; Orlando, Florida; and the Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida. All results of terrorists posing as refugees. All with devastating consequences. All preventable.
    If we have, and i quote: ‘Inalienable rights and dignity’ <end quote>, why does the prop case brush over the citizens of host countries as if they do not exist?
    The definition of a refugee is a victim of persecution. If only we would all give life saving support! Who knows, shall we make it a goal to add another few trillion to the national debt? If everyone gave refugees safe passage, here’s what we would get: constant travel. The ‘persecuted’ would not be able to settle down, simply because there wouldn't be any place for them.

    Posted at April 19, 2017 11:39:13AM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong



    United Nations High Commission for Refugees, 03/31/2017 (UNHCR, “Yemen: Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan”, d/l:

    Norah Niland, 12/01/2016 (Watson Institute For International and Public Affairs, “Costs of War”, d/l:
    Saeed Ahmed, 12/5/2015 (CNN, “Who were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik”, d/l:

    Lucy Pasha-Robinson, 01/26/2017 (The Independent, “Chance of Being Killed by Refugee Terrorist in United States is One in 3.6 Billion”, d/l:

    The Local FR, 03/08/2016 (The Local, “Prestigious French uni offers English courses to migrants”, d/l:

    European Commission, 02/01/2017 (European Commission, “Managing the Refugee Crisis: EU Support to Lebanon and Jordan Since the Onset of Syria Crisis”, d/l:

    Posted at April 20, 2017 07:39:26PM EST by Jessica Mandeville



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2017 01:16:35PM EST by Ee Hsiun Chong



    BBC 03/04/2016 (BBC, “Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts”, d/l:

    Marco Funk & Roderick Parkes 01/25/2016 (European Union Institute for Security Studies, “Refugees versus terrorists”, d/l:


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 21, 2017 04:07:42PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Ee Hsiun Chong Jessica Mandeville
    Use of evidence: 4.7 4.2
    Delivery skill: 5.2 3.8
    Coherence of arguments: 4.8 4.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 3.5
    Identification of key points: 4.1 3.8
    Comments: A really like your strong opening, and your ability to give a human face to the horror. I also like how you define down what you'll actually defend (vetting processing like certain EU protocols etc). You also do a great job being clear about your points. Also good job with providing sources. I would suggest potentially referencing them more clearly in your actual speech though. This would be especially useful in those parts of your speech where you're relying on economic and statistical data.

    I like how you foreground that the opp has no solution for refugees, which has a larger death toll and moral consequence. I wish you directly cited someone on your borders argument, and had a formal contention in your opening speech that was a kritik of cartography. Good job responding (with sources) to each one of your opponent's objection's as well.
    You do a good job at covering the major areas and topics of the debate. I would suggest having a portion of your speech more directly dedicated to answering your opponent's speech though. If you aren't going to directly respond, you should at least start doing some of your impact framing (ie to show why the radicalization would be worse than what might happen if refugees stay within their home nations). You do eventually get around to answering the prop case at the end of your speech. I would move that earlier and relate it directly to the offense you're presenting.

    You need to use all your speaking time on the opp side. You only have two speeches to the prop's three. The length of your speeches is your advantage. Don't give that up. Beyond that, spend less time making analogies and asking rhetorical questions. Instead in a closing speech you should be making conclusions and saying why I should vote for you / against your opponent. Your speech has a bunch of random answers to things versus a singular coherent reason for why I should negate.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Ee Hsiun Chong

    Reason for Decision:

    At the end of the debate I am unsure why I would vote against opening borders for refugees. Even if there might be some risks involved, the prop wins that there is a greater number of people whose lives are threatened due to crisis and the possibility for solving this than the security threat that may ensue. The prop also wins that the risk of that threat is low since the attackers in the opp's examples were all found to be domestic-born and not migrants. Without responding to that point it's tough to win that the security risk outweighs. I also think the prop does a better job at articulating the importance of the impacts and I would urge the opp in future debaters to find either a more rhetorical persuasive way to convey your impacts, or get better at debating out the utilitarian nature of your security concerns. Overall, good debate. I enjoyed judging it.

    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: