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: Hazuki Kido (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Clara Harding (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.

  • Hazuki Kido
    Hazuki Kido

    Clara Harding
    Clara Harding
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2017 07:17:49PM EST by Hazuki Kido



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2017 11:06:58PM EST by Clara Harding



    Refugees Laws And Sovereignty Of The State. "Refugee Laws and Sovereignty of the State."Refugees Laws and Sovereignty of the State. Refugees Laws and Sovereignty of the State(n.d.): n. pag. ARDD - Legal Aid. ARDD - Legal Aid, 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2017.

    "Why Is EU Struggling with Migrants and Asylum?" BBC News. BBC, 03 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Zeigler, Karen. "The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees." Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 03 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Williams, Rob. "Syrian Refugees Will Cost Ten times More to Care for in Europe than in Neighboring Countries." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 13 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Posted at April 19, 2017 09:13:46AM EST by Hazuki Kido



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2017 12:25:51AM EST by Clara Harding



    Posted at April 21, 2017 08:27:08AM EST by Hazuki Kido



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 23, 2017 12:56:58PM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Hazuki Kido Clara Harding
    Use of evidence: 4.2 3.9
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.8
    Coherence of arguments: 3.8 3.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 4.1
    Identification of key points: 3.8 4
    Comments: These are some points what you could have been improved.

    1. If accepting refugees truly boost the economy of developed countries, why the developed countries currently hesitate to accept more refugees? In your economy benefit point, you could have been explaining mechanism how refugees can actually contribute economy growth.

    2. Is it really dangerous to refugees themselves if countries are not accepting them?
    You said that not accepting them left these people in dangerous situations, but sending protective forces to the refugee camps and other alternatives are also possible. Be more comparative.
    These are some points what you could have been improved.

    1. You mentioned about cost of refugees themselves to move in developed countries. But the problem in this point is, 'If the cost is so huge, why refugees still want to go to developed countries?'. If preventing borders really save refugees lives who recklessly cross over the Mediterranean Sea and others do similar trial, it'll make your stance more stronger.

    2. You provided higher price as another source of opportunity cost. But is it really true that developed countries need to use larger amounts of resources to accept and care refugees than the case not accepting the refugees into their countries but still to try helping them? You said that more direct support to refugee camps will be more beneficial. But please do more explanations next time.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Clara Harding

    Reason for Decision:

    It was good debate with active responses and relatively well-developed arguments.

    Although it was quite hard to decide the winner, I choose opposition because of solvency issue. Both side agreed that refugees need help. So I could go directly into the point which speaker provide more solvency.
    If we can use money more effectively when we support refugee camps directly following the opp case, I couldn't see the proposition response why it is more effective by accepting them in developed countries. In the terms of safety, I didn't know how governments can provide safe transportation in the Mediterranean Sea and other routes? It requires additional policies over just opening borders.

    In the terms of economy, 'economic benefit' and 'cost' made some kind of deadlock because proposition didn't provide specific mechanism to do that and opp's response remained in similar level.

    In the issue of sovereignty, proposition tried to counter the principle by suggesting other values like economy and humanitarian support, but as long as opp also regard the above issues in her response, lack of direct response from proposition didn't help her to change the decision. But the portion of sovereignty issue was relatively minor, so the entire gap was not big.

    Thank you very much for reading this decision and I hope both of you in next round.

    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: