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: David Montag (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Owen Ruggeri (Wood River High School)

Judge: Min Seob Lee (Kyunghee University)

Resolution: This house believes that the borders of nation-states should not prevent the movement of refugees.

  • David Montag
    David Montag

    Owen Ruggeri
    Owen Ruggeri
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 05:49:52PM EST by David Montag



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2017 10:47:19AM EST by Owen Ruggeri



    “We don’t have business problems we have people problems. When we take care of our people problems, most of our business problems are automatically solved.” By agreeing with Shiv Khera, I negate the resolution that this house believes that the borders of nation states should not prevent the movement of refugees.Supporting the acceptance of refugees only examines the first layer of the problem. It only tells us that people need safe places from oppressive regimes. For this round it is vital that we value the wellbeing of humanity. Unfortunately, opening borders does not solve the root problem within the nation state of turmoil; it just lets the victims of that nation state escape while the oppressors grow stronger. If the rest of the world put effort into stopping these corrupt regimes, then refugees wouldn’t be a problem at all.

    Contention 1: False solvency

    Consider, if you will, a weed. A weed is destructive to a yard or garden and must be removed for the rest of the yard to prosper. If the weed is cut at the base, it will grow back in a matter of time. But if a weed is yanked up from its roots, it will not return. Pulling the weed up from its roots might take more immediate energy than cutting it at the base, but the weed will not grow back. Applying this analogy to the current world, if we keep accepting refugees, or “cutting the problem at its base,” then a final and lasting solution will not be reached. If we take out the oppressors that are causing victims to run away, then the entire refugee crisis will exist no more. Not to mention that there are other citizens within these nation states of turmoil that would benefit from the safety provided by taking out their oppressors. To finish off, it is crucial that the world works as one to nip the problem in the bud, instead of letting it perpetuate to a higher degree of trouble.

    Posted at April 19, 2017 09:46:17PM EST by David Montag



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2017 12:27:03AM EST by Owen Ruggeri



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2017 01:25:12PM EST by David Montag



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 23, 2017 09:54:31AM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category David Montag Owen Ruggeri
    Use of evidence: 3.8 3.9
    Delivery skill: 3.8 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 3.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.1 3.8
    Identification of key points: 3.9 3.7
    Comments: These are some points what you could have been improved.

    1. Please keep responding your opponent to protect important examples of your side. Definitely, German scientists as 12% among whole German refugees in WW2 doesn't look like that big benefit to your side.

    2. Don't do overtime in the case of proposition closing speech. Especially in the case of proposition closing speech, your opponent doesn't get chance to respond your additional points.
    These are some points what you could have been improved.

    1. How preventing refugees to help solving problems fundamentally? It was good strategy to provide how we can solve root-causes of refugees, but why not-preventing refugees hinder the effort to solve root-cause? Please make mutually exclusive.

    2. Communism is over. So there are no more refugees from soviet Union and eastern Europe. But if you expanded the point to current examples of middle east by emphasizing similarities. or showing differences to explain why we need different solution between Communist countries and middle east, it could have been better.

    The decision is for the Proposition: David Montag

    Reason for Decision:

    In the case of benefits by refugees, although I accept the point that there are some benefits from refugees as workers like the case of German scientists, opposition successfully diminished the impact by suggesting numbers about German scientists. But opposition didn't go further by suggesting negative impact, this clash didn't benefited either side clearly.

    In the case of saving refugees, proposition suggested urgent need and opposition suggested the need of fundamental solutions. Although I agreed the opposition's solution can end the problem permanently, but without suggesting mutual exclusivity, I agreed the proposition's response that there are still people we need to save while we solve the problems in conflicting zones. That's the reason why I gave this debate to proposition.

    Thank you very much for both debaters by making this historically insightful debate.

    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: