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 24, 2017 05:03:25AM EST by Kana Shoji
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 25, 2017 03:03:43PM EST by Matthew Slencsak
So there's no good way for me to include the text of my speech in the citation box because the box won't keep the formatting of my cards. To make up for this I've included a link to the speech here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yb42ers493hucxb/1st%20Opp%20speech%20vs%20Shorin%20Global%20KM.docx?dl=0
Oxford English Dictionary
Cafaro & Staples 09
End of Case
Feel free to email me for clarification or about any questions you have regarding the case, the theory shell or attacks. Also if the drop box link didn't work feel free to email me and I'll send you a copy of the case, theory shell and attacks. @firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted at April 27, 2017 10:17:11AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 28, 2017 12:43:45AM EST by Matthew Slencsak
A mostly accurate transcript of my speech. I'm really bad at staying on script.
Opp 2nd Speech vs Shorin Global KS
The order will be Dropped arguments, then prop, then KVI’s.
First extend my entire case through the round. My opponent doesn’t attack anything in it. This obviously has a ton of impacts.
1. You must weigh todays under through the standard of respecting state sovereignty
2. You must accept that todays debate is about obligations. This comes from my definition of should.
3. You must accept that states have no obligations to take refugees. That was my 1st contention. States can’t have obligations to noncitizens.
4. You must accept that free movement of refugees harms state sovereignty.
So right now you’re voting opp off of the sovereignty framework, and the obligations argument.
Next extend the entire theory argument through the round. My opponent doesn’t address it AND CONTINUES THE ABUSES I OUTLINED IN THE THEORY SHELL.
This means I win the round off theory. My opponent’s refusal to cite sources must result in her loss in order to set standards for acceptable conduct in a debate round. You must also give her a loss in order to make up for the time I had to spend running theory.
So just to summarize as I go down the flow you’re voting me up for three reasons 1. The sovereignty framework, 2. The obligations argument, and 3. The theory shell.
Now let’s move onto the prop case.
My opponent attempts to defend her frame work by arguing that governments should protect refugees because refugees own governments don’t protect them. First she shouldn’t be allowed to warrant her arguments one speech after she makes them. Second even if you allow her to do this she still doesn’t provide a warrant of these governments have obligations to noncitizens while my contention 2 which she concedes shows that governments have no such obligations.
On my opponents first contention she drops the argument that governments have no obligation to help refugees. Thus her first contention falls on drops.
My opponent drops both my attacks against their contention 2. This means first you’re going to ignore their contention 2 because it doesn’t weigh under any framework in the round. And second even if you don’t by that you must flow the Abernethy 96 card through the round. The card states refugees will harm poor and minority citizens in host countries.
Key Voting Issues
The first key voting issue is frame work. I’ve clearly won frame work because my opponent doesn’t attack the frame work of respecting state sovereignty. This means we must weigh the round through this framework. Under this framework I’ve won the round through my Blake 2001 evidence which states the ability to exclude people is essential to state sovereignty.
The 2nd key voting issue is the theory argument. My opponent doesn’t dispute this at all and doubles down on their abuse in the next speech. Because my opponent chose not to provide any citations they must be given a loss in order to set standards for acceptable conduct in debate rounds and rectify for time lost running theory. Once again she drops this argument meaning it flows though and you must drop her.
The 3rd key voting issue is drops. Because of drops my opponent conceded my entire case, and has no offense left in their own case as they dropped each contention of their case. Thus because my opponent dropped so many arguments their can be no reason left to vote them up. They have no offense, defense or anything else left in the round.
Thank you and I strongly urge an OPP ballot
A link to the speech doc in dropbox if you prefer to read it that way.
I read no other sources but I do reference back to my previous speech a lot so I'll include a link to the speech doc from the 1st OPP speech as well.
Feel free to email me with questions about anything I read in the round @email@example.com.
Lastly I'd like to thank Shorin Global KS for the excellent round, and thank our judge for judging.
Posted at April 28, 2017 07:19:28PM EST by Kana Shoji
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 30, 2017 01:34:11PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Kana Shoji||Matthew Slencsak|
|Use of evidence:||3||5.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||4.8|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||4.5|
|Comments:||I like how you frame humanitarian aid and the need to protect refugee lives from the get-go. I think you could do more proving how a prop ballot can solve your harms though instead of just focusing on the impacts. Also, as always, I think you should provide a textual citation when submitting your link to increase the educational value of the debate. I also like how you talk about your impacts specifically to certain geographic areas. Also what is the terminal impact to the economy? Why should I care about economic growth? (Terrorism seems to be your impact but you only mention it once). Focusing on what the terminal implication is would be useful.
There's some free software out there that you can use to remove the background noise. You do a good job defending your points to the opp's attacks on them. But, again, you need to do more impact work. If you win your economy contention why does that win you the round? In this case, why does it outweigh the state sovereignty argument by the opposition? Frame your arguments more offensively instead of being on the defense throughout your rebuttal speech. The biggest issue in your speech though is that you drop both of the opposition's off-case argument (state sovereignty da, and citation procedural). When you concede that how you debated was unfair and that I should vote against you (all in the opposition's opening) there's no way you can win the round since you concede that you cheated. I don't necessarily think that it's worth voting against you on the procedural argument since I can just lower your points. However, you don't make that argument.
|I like that your provide a full-text to your speech as needed. However, I think given your opponent the speed you deploy in this round gets in the way of international dialog and education so I wished you slowed down (even though as a native English speaker I think you're clear). I would be willing to consider a procedural argument to reject you on this fact; in the same way I voted for your citation procedural argument in another round. I also like how you frame the ballot from the get-go to shift the presumption in regards to what the prop must do. Okay, so since you are making the citation procedural argument here again... you should watch for your speed as a sufficient check against citations etc. You have a good shell for the procedural though and I do in abstract agree with it. Also, good job at having two clear off-case arguments and then responding to the prop's case.
I appreciate you slowing down in your second speech, and just collapsing to your offense to ensure that you win the round but allow a debate to take place. You should maybe make some arguments about how I shouldn't allow new answers in the prop's closing speech. I also like you provide the full-text of your speech for your opponent as well. I'd also recommend that instead of only saying my "opponent dropped" consistently say something like "my opponent only makes one argument, which is... however, ..." since she does make answers to some of your arguments and there are some things she says that could be cross-applied to your sovereignty argument that wouldn't be 100% new in my opinion. Watch out for morphs and always answer the best version of the argument.
The decision is for the Opposition: Matthew Slencsak
Reason for Decision:
The proposition concedes in both speeches that not providing written citations is a reason why I should vote against you. According to the opposition failing to provide citations hurts debate and encourages debaters to make up evidence, while making it impossible for a judge to compare evidence. When there is no answer to this argument I need to vote on it.
Personally, I believe all of the opposition's standard but I don't necessarily think it's worth the ballot. A procedural argument needs an interpretation (provide written cites) a violation (the prop doesn't) standards for why it's a good rule (education and fairness) and then why it's worth pulling the trigger (opp says to send a message). come up with a counter-interpretation (verbal cites are good enough) counter-standards (encourages better research since the opp has to look for our evidence) but mostly the voting issue. Don't overlook the rest of the debate. Just decrease my "use of evidence" points and/or evaluate my arguments as analytics. I think you should provide cites. But you could argue the punishment of voting against you doesn't fit the crime. When the prop doesn't do this it means I don't evaluate anything else in the debate because the prop concedes that what they did hurts education and fairness, and is a voting issue.