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 11:48:18PM EST by Zoe Simon
Bregman, Rutger. "The Surprisingly Compelling Argument for Open Borders." Fortune, 17 Apr. 2016, fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Matsangou, Elizabeth. "Refugees are an economic benefit, not burden, to Europe." World Finance, 2 Nov. 2015, www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/refugees-are-an-economic-benefit-not-burden-to-europe. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Mednicoff, David. "More Syrian refugees: good for national security." The Conversation, 10 Sept. 2015, www.rawstory.com/2015/11/why-accepting-syrian-refugees-is-actually-good-for-national-security/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Posted at April 18, 2017 10:58:33AM EST by Kana Shoji
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 20, 2017 08:26:58AM EST by Kana Shoji
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 22, 2017 11:14:06AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Zoe Simon||Kana Shoji|
|Use of evidence:||4||3.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.1||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.9||3.7|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||4|
|Comments:||I like how you start out your speech as well as contextualizing how I should approach the round as a judge in regards to safety. I also like how you limit the debate down to specific refugee crisis (in terms of your impacts and scenarios). I think your speech could be improved upon by creating a greater diversity of impacts in your opening speech. Also a terminal impact to economy would help as well.
Good job responding to your opponent. However, make sure you extend your initial impacts more explicitly earlier on. Don't forget your opening prop in your rebuttal. Also, you should provide links to your cites instead of just referencing it verbally.
What is the terminal impact to national security or economy?
|You should give cites in the citation box instead of just referencing them verbally. I think you do a good job at stating your major points and objections. However, you should make sure you have a part of your speech devoted to directly answering the contentions your opponent makes in her opening speech. I would also suggest formalizing your "countries should formalize the refugee process" argument into a counter-plan. Doing that clearly would make it easier to use that argument to serve as a reason to reject the proposition. It would also help your illegal migration argument (which without a counter-plan seems like a reason we should open borders so smugglers don't have an illegal market). When you do get to answering your opponent's argument at the end try to be more offensive and not just ask rhetorical questions and just hole poke. Connect your answers back to the larger offense of your initial two contentions.
If there are so many refugees and forced labor situations in the status-quo, why should I negate? It seems that with closed borders these impacts are already happening and serves as a reason to affirm. This is why the counter-plan would be useful. I think this might be your "countries who are okay should, and countries who aren't shouldn't" argument. But what happens in the world that not enough countries open the borders, which is the case now? The fact that you start off with how many refugees there are indicates that just letting countries do what they want isn't solving. However, I do think that there is a good argument within here that just needs to be established and drawn out more.
The decision is for the Proposition: Zoe Simon
Reason for Decision:
This is a tough debate to decide because there is a semblance of a counter-plan in the opp's closing speech that largely doesn't get answered. At the same time, it emerges late in the debate, isn't super formalized, and doesn't deal with many of the questions I put in the feedback of it above. The prop is doing a better job at winning the impacts and the need to effectively deal with refugees. The opp largely agrees there is a refugee issue but contends that not all nations should open their borders since some may not want to. The problem resides in that I don't know what "this house" is since neither debater contextualizes it for me. If it is all nations, I think the opp probably wins that not all nations should be forced to open their borders. If it is just the United States, I think the prop probably wins that the US should open its borders. Ultimately, I vote for the prop since I think overall there is a greater need for more nations to open their borders than keep the closed because the more countries have open borders the less likely it would be for illicit human trafficking (then plus the security and economic impacts). I do think this is a close debate and if the opp formalized the counter-plan in your opening speech (ie one of your first two contentions would be presented "my first contention is a counter-plan. voting for the opp is means that you are in support of X, and not the status-quo." Otherwise, I don't think the current system is solving the problems you both say exist. The other way the opp can win my ballot is by defining "this house" as all nations or as the UN and/or just contextualizing what my ballot means more.