Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
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 03:13:33AM EST by Aika Miyazawa
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 18, 2017 11:52:32PM EST by Pierce Grathwohl
Dearden, Lizzie. "Norwegian Intelligence Agency Says Arrival of Refugees Is Increasing National Security Threat." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norwegian-intelligence-agency-saysarrival-of-refugees-is-increasing-national-security-threat-10515747.html
Norway’s domestic intelligence agency says the national threat level has increased as a result of the increasing number of refugees and migrants arriving in the country. But it is the response of far-right groups, rather than the asylum seekers themselves, affecting the security situation. Benedicte Bjørnland, head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), announced on Thursday that the arrival of thousands of refugees is expected to have “adverse consequences for threats linked to the extreme-right scene”
Contention 2: National Sovereignty
In short, the reason why you should not vote in the affirmative is due to national sovereignty. Nations have the right to chose what their laws say. If we decide to overrule the country's sovereignty, then we are not using the democratic process, decreasing democracy is said countries. The needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the few. Additionally, if these countries are truly thinking morally, then they will allow refugees in. However, one cover-all policy won’t work. These countries have the right to chose what happens. Hopefully they will choose to allow refugees in. But in the end, protecting democracy is most important, and that is what the neg does.
studebaker, Benjamin. "4 Arguments Against Accepting Syrian Refugees and Why They All Fail." Benjamin Studebaker. N.p., 20 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2017
In the United States, foreign born residents are estimated to contribute almost $19,000 more in tax receipts each decade than they consume in government benefits:
This means that refugees and immigrants more than pay for their own public services. We do not have to worry about schools being overcrowded with foreign children, because foreigners will contribute more than enough revenue to pay for additional teachers and classrooms. We don’t have to worry about immigrants and refugees scrounging for welfare benefits, because they will work and be net contributors to the tax system on average.
Posted at April 19, 2017 08:16:50AM EST by Aika Miyazawa
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 21, 2017 01:10:23AM EST by Pierce Grathwohl
Martinez, Michael. "Syrian Refugees: Which Countries Welcome Them." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "UN Seeks $4.63 Billion to Aid Syrian Refugees and Host Nations." UNHCR. UNHCR, 24 Jan. 2017. Web. 21 Apr. 2017.
Bennett, Ph.D. Georgette. "Syrian Refugee Crisis Strains Jordan's Resources." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.
Posted at April 21, 2017 04:28:09AM EST by Aika Miyazawa
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 21, 2017 09:49:01AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Aika Miyazawa||Pierce Grathwohl|
|Use of evidence:||3.5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.6||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5.1||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.7||3.4|
|Comments:||I like how you limit the topic down to refugees to certain areas of the world. I also think you do a good job identifying impacts like child labor and economic benefits. You do a good job at demonstrating how increasing relocation choices can solve the problems you identify as well. I wish that you would provide citations in the citation box though so your opponent could look up your sources. Ie give the Wall Street Journal link instead of just saying WSJ in your speech.
Good road mapping of your speech. Also great job responding to your opponent's argument, and showing how opening the borders is a better way to gain the benefits of immigration, etc. I think your argument on how all nations need to open their borders and not just some (since choice and distribution is important) is really good nuance.
|If the cause of increased threats and security is the result of the far right, it seems like the far right is the problem and not the refugees. Keep people in a horrible situation because there are racists here? You do a good job in setting up your speech in regards to your main objections / off-case arguments and your responses to theirs. It also seems like when you're saying that immigrants and refugees will help schools, economy, etc that seems to be in support of the proposition side.
The indict of not providing cites is good, but I would follow it up with a reason for why the argument is incorrect (especially since there's at least a verbal cite given). You need to do better in your closing speech in explaining why you win the round instead of just answering everything point-by-point. Frame the round better. Do more on warranting on why national sovereignty outweighs refugee rights since that's your offense. Your first two voters at the end are more like defense and things to weigh against the proposition versus why you win the round (which your third voter is better at).
The decision is for the Proposition: Aika Miyazawa
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the proposition since I don't think the status-quo is desirable and the ballot is not re-framed by the opposition well enough. At the end of the debate I don't know why sovereignty is more important that enabling people to flee persecution and maybe gain an economic impact. Many of the opposition's objections (except for state sovereignty) are answered by the prop's argument that every nation opening borders solves the problems of stereotyping, overflooding individual nations, etc. Because all of this happens with status-quo refugee movement there's is only a risk opening up all borders can solve. If the opp more directly weighed out the state sovereignty impact I could have voted on that. However, without a reason for why that is more important the other impacts that the prop more clearly solves is a reason for me to affirm.
In regards to the time violation, I would be willing to vote on it but the opposition would need to spend more of your last speech explaining why I should disregard the entirety of the debate (which was a great one) to vote on this procedural issue. Instead, I just don't evaluate anything the prop says after the time limit. Again, impact out why this is a voter more and you can win.
In regards to lack of typed cites (1) please provide them in the future (2) it is a reason I prefer the opp's evidence when comparing evidence, but I don't think this debate comes down to who's evidence is better. I think the debate comes down to the prop world is better than the status-quo since many of the problems of status-quo refugees can be solved by more countries opening up the borders.
Overall, great debate. I enjoyed judging it!