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: Nathan Stouffer (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Benjamin Goh (Yale-NUS College)

Judge: Min Seob Lee (Kyunghee University)

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

  • Nathan Stouffer
    Nathan Stouffer
    vs.



    Benjamin Goh
    Benjamin Goh
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2017 10:57:30PM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    Sorry about the low video quality, but the sound is loud and clear, and that's what's important.

    C1 SA Citation (Link at the bottom):
    Taylor, J. Edward, Mateusz J. Filipski, Mohamad Alloush, Anubha Guptaa, and And Ruben Irvin Rojas Valdes. "J. Edward Taylor." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. National Acad Sciences, 12 May 2016. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. <http://www.pnas.org/content/113/27/7449.full>.

    C1 SB Citation (Link at bottom):
    Yakushko, Oksana. "Xenophobia: Understanding the Roots and Consequences of Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants." University of Nebraska. University of Nebraska, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2017. <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=edpsychpapers>.

    Good luck! If the audio isn't working out on your end, let me know and I'll post the written form of my speech in the comments.

    Posted at April 25, 2017 07:51:58AM EST by Benjamin Goh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 26, 2017 02:07:00PM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 27, 2017 12:05:51PM EST by Benjamin Goh

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2017 09:38:47AM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    Thanks for a great round!

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 30, 2017 07:47:40AM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Nathan Stouffer Benjamin Goh
    Use of evidence: 4 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.4 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.4 3.8
    Identification of key points: 3.4 3.8
    Comments: The points what you could have been improved are in below comments.

    Proposition
    1. You don't have to much time to explain 'utilitarianism' because it makes your opponent easily concede the point and can spend more time than yours to develop his own benefit/harm analysis. Be more strategic!

    2. Specific citations can be good. But please explain why the results from the citations can apply other situations in the real world. Plus rather than depend on citation, using your own word to explain can show better understanding to judge sometimes.
    The points what you could have been improved are in below comments.

    Opposition
    1. Maybe economic benefit from proposition can be decreased if developed countries should get all refugees. But is it really true? Is getting job only way to contribute to economy?
    Please provide more diverse perspectives.

    2. Trump example was good. But if you provided more explanation and more link with motion, you could do more effectively rebut why open borders can actually cause more ethnic/cultural problems.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Benjamin Goh

    Reason for Decision:

    In the set-up, both side spend quite much time to describe points not that urgent. Proposition doesn't have to explain utilitarianism that much and opposition doesn't have to alternative set-up that we need to apply gov's case to all countries. As opposition just went through the harm/benefit comparison, government did also argue that his case is in more general situation.

    Having said that, the reasons why I gave this debate to the opposition because I could see more comparison about reality from opposition's case than government's case. There were 2 main issues; 1st, economic benefit. 2nd, results of cultural exchange.

    In the 1st issue, proposition gave many statistics and evidences to prove that accepting refugees is beneficial to the economy of host countries. The response from the opposition was if that's the case, countries will accept refugees who can work than the refugees who'll need urgent help. Proposition pointed out that it's not his case. In this point, I guess proposition will open borders anyhow, but the reason; economic benefit was reduced by the attack from the opposition. Although opposition pointed out what the proposition speaker didn't said, but did diminish the level of benefits from the proposition. But this clash didn't go to opposition neither because opp didn't suggest his own constructive matters that much. Like the case of Greece are full of debt. Without sufficient back-up which drag enough response from the gov, opp also failed to take this clash. So this clash was some kind of deadlock.

    In the 2nd issue, like the case of 1st issue, prop provide citation plus positive result because of accepting refugees. But it was pointed out by opp by saying lack of mechanism, plus counter-example like Trump and Le-Pen gave me doubt that what kind of cultural exchange can provoke positive multi-culturalism what prop originally intended to. Maybe prop speaker can tell me that there are more citations than opp's citations, and these citations said what you wanted to explain in detail, but what I want to hear from both side was, how you understand complicate real world situation and explain me by your own world in limited time. Although I still want to encourage for both speakers use citations to study more, but in the debate, please show what you learned from the study in compact manner. So even though I gave win to opp speaker, I also want to recognize prop's trial to find adequate citations.

    Thank you very much for reading this long reasons. I hope your luck in your future debates.


    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT