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 25, 2017 12:01:39AM EST by Matthew Slencsak
Full text of the speech except for the summary at the end. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7unyzry3rnz9y5k/1st%20Prop%20vs%20Binghamton%20ZT.docx?dl=0
Links to what I cited.
Huemer 2003 http://www.owl232.net/guncontrol.htm
International Justice Resource Center
If you need more info or have questions email me @firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted at April 25, 2017 08:51:38AM EST by Hazuki Kido
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 27, 2017 02:53:35AM EST by Matthew Slencsak
Full text of the speech (Honestly I wrote this really late because I got busy with other commitments so If I don't stay on script it's probably just me fixing grammar or spelling. This is still an accurate list of arguments presented, it's just the phrasing may be a little different than what I said in round.)
YaleGlobal Online 16
Posted at April 27, 2017 10:25:55AM EST by Hazuki Kido
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 28, 2017 12:00:56PM EST by Matthew Slencsak
Full text of the speech
Prop Closing vs Shorin Global HK
I’ll start by going over the opposition case then I’ll move on to key voting issues.
First I’d like to point out my opponent drops their attempt at framing this round. That means you must look towards the standard of respecting prima facie rights in todays round.
Second my opponents defense of their first contention is non responsive. She ignores my point that allowing the free movement of refugees will lead to refugees being more evenly dispersed so that flows through and we can drop her first contention.
Third she argues I need to show evidence of why refugees home countries are worse than their host countries. I argue that I don’t. This is just obvious. For example if I was being chased by a dog I wouldn’t run into the lion exhibit at a zoo to ask it. Also this point doesn’t matter as the prop advocacy allows refugees to return to their host countries.
Lastly my opponent attempts to defend their contention 2 but ignores my evidence stating that open borders will end smuggling. But seriously do I even need evidence for this claim? Why would people pay smugglers to do something that’s legal? It’d be like hiring a smuggler to take me to work in the morning. No one would do it.
Key Voting Issues
First you’re voting me up off the dropped theory argument. My opponent concedes this and thus it flows through the round. In the theory shell I state my opponent must be given a loss for failing to cite any of their sources in order to 1. Set standards for acceptable conduct in a debate round and 2. Rectify for time lost running theory. She doesn’t address this at all and thus must be given a loss.
Second you’re voting me up off of framework. I’m the only debater in the round to offer a coherent framework and my opponent drops this framework. That means you must weigh todays round with the standard of respecting prima facie rights. Because I prove that refugees have a prima facie right to free movement through my sub point A and subpoint C of my first contention I’ve won this round by upholding the only framework in this round.
Finally My opponent has no arguments left in today’s round. I’ve shown why both of her contentions aren’t true and fall leaving you with no reason to vote her up.
Thank you and I strongly urge a prop ballot in today’s round.
Full text of the speech for those of you who prefer dropbox links.
I don't cite anything new here.
If you have any questions email me @email@example.com
Lastly I'd like to thank my opponent for the excellent round and thank my judge for taking the time out of their day to judge rounds.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 28, 2017 10:53:13PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Matthew Slencsak||Hazuki Kido|
|Use of evidence:||5.5||3.3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.7||3.9|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.8||3.4|
|Identification of key points:||4.4||3.5|
|Comments:||Great job at providing citations for your speech. I also appreciate how you gave a full speech document for your opponent to follow. Good job with starting by contextualizing what the ballot means and who I should approach the round in regards to rights. You also do a good job creating a terminal impact to rights. The only suggestion I would have would be to directly weigh it against utilitarianism. Pre-empt that debate instead of waiting for the opp to take it up. Also, I would suggest giving Humor's qualifications verbally in your speech since you rely on Humor a lot. When you do that make sure you build upon the author's credibility.
I do enjoy your procedural argument against the lack of providing cites. I think it's a little bit of a cheap shot since the majority of people don't provide cites. However, I do mention it in every round I see it. Normally I just take off points for it, but you do a good job implicating it as a reason to vote. It might be a waste of your time though versus just going for the substance of the debate and indicting the lack of cites (and using that as a reason to prefer your arguments). Good job providing cites that turn your opponent's argument and extending the dropped framework in regards to rights.
|You need to respond to the clear role of the ballot that the prop establishes in their opening speech. If you don't none of your arguments will justify an opp ballot since there's an argument in the prop's first speech on what you need to do to win the round... and just pointing out problems with refugee movement isn't it (according to him you need to win that the violation of refugee rights is justified, which is a hard thing to do unless you win utilitarianism good explicitly). Your generally arguments against the resolution are good. However, they aren't particularly great at negating this opening prop speech. Your human rights reduction argument could be the reason to negate in relation to the role of the ballot. However, I would like you to line up that argument more for yourself to his instead of making me do the interaction work. You should also provide your cites and not just mention them verbally in your speech.
Try to position the camera so the judge/opponent can see your eyes. You do a good job defended your arguments when reconstructing your opening speech in your closing. This would be a great place to do evidence comparison and give reasons to support the sources you verbally cite. If both sides have evidence that say the opposite, who do I believe? You should make that comparative analysis instead of relying on the judge. The biggest issue though is that you need to do a better job answering the unique objections the prop has to you (namely the citation procedural argument).
The decision is for the Proposition: Matthew Slencsak
Reason for Decision:
The opposition drops the framework that refugee prima facie rights of refugees, which is devastating because it means even if the opp wins 100% of your security impacts etc the rights come first. There are some opp answers to how opening borders might hurt refugee rights (through smuggling for instance) but those rights are contingent (something that may occur as a result of the prop) versus prima facie (what refugees on-face deserve). There are ways you could contextualize it in another way but you don't.
However, even easier than that, is the dropped procedural argument that you have to provide citations. The prop says this is a reason to vote the opp down since it destroys one's ability to look at the evidence, hurting fairness, and increases abuse since people can just verbally cite whatever study they want regardless of what it might actually say. Normally I only take off points for this and make a comment. However, it was warranted out as a voting issue and there was no response to it by the opp. Given that, I am more than willing to pull the trigger since I do believe debate is enhanced by having the ability to check the sources of your opponent (so you can debate about the evidence and directly compare it). Easy way to solve this problem: provide the cites. Another way to solve the problem: answer the argument with reasons for why written cites are unnecessary or not worth the ballot.