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: Aidan Burchmore (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

    Aidan Burchmore
    Aidan Burchmore
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2017 04:28:30AM EST by Hazuki Kido



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2017 11:07:15PM EST by Aidan Burchmore



    Sheahen 2013/Mouamar 2013:

    Posted at April 26, 2017 11:01:24AM EST by Hazuki Kido



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 27, 2017 11:54:32PM EST by Aidan Burchmore



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2017 10:16:10AM EST by Hazuki Kido



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 30, 2017 08:26:41AM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Hazuki Kido Aidan Burchmore
    Use of evidence: 3.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 3.9 3.8
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.2 3.5
    Identification of key points: 4 3.8
    Comments: The points what you could have been improved are in below comments.

    1. Please describe what kind of economic benefit from refugees more specifically. As your opponent said, why it is not the case that refugees will take over jobs for native citizens? Even if it is the case, why it is more beneficial in general?

    2. When your opposition mentioned Lebanon and other neighboring countries, your economic benefit argument have some kind of counter-examples. Is 'the economic benefits' also benefits for Greece, Italy, Spain and others?
    The points what you could have been improved are in below comments.

    1. It was really good trial to response economic benefit from prop by saying it'll take jobs about native citizens in developed countries.
    But if you provide more supporting materials for making above situation as world-wide problem, and look at other problems following above problems, you could have get more stronger position than above debate.

    2. Focusing about Lebanon and Iraq, and other neighboring countries was looked like describing status quo. When we apply policy 'opening borders', are the situations would be worse or better? Please be more comparative between before and after.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Hazuki Kido

    Reason for Decision:

    Economy benefit/harm, Capacity to saving refugees were main reasons, and I also consider sovereignty, democracy, humanitarian reason from both sides.

    In the case of economic benefits, by accepting refugees, government side can get economic growth like the case in Germany. The response from the opposition was because of the refugees, the native citizens loss their jobs. In this issue, I guess both side failed to show decisive blow to neither side. Because I couldn't know how much eco growth will be happening and how it gonna do that, plus I also couldn't know how much job loss from native citizens and how it makes situations in developed countries worse than the status quo.

    In the case of Capacity, opposition started to say neighboring countries like Lebanon have lack of resources. The response from the proposition was that's the reason why we open borders to distribute refugees equally. The response from the opposition was in that case, USA and Germany will experience lack of resources. But in this point, I didn't know how much capacity that USA and Germany have, and how many refugees will flow in these two countries. But even if I disregard above doubt because it is my own guess, when I consider the fact that prop pointed out open borders with international cooperation, refugees can go anywhere to get enough support. In this point, proposition did show comparison between status quo and after, opposition's case was looked like concentrating describing the seriousness of status quo. That's the reason why this second issue, also one of major issue goes to proposition.

    In the cases of other issues like democracy and sovereignty, I couldn't hear more than 'people in their own country have their own right to decide what they want'. But without explanation of what is democracy specifically, the level of principles from opp was similar that the principle of prop's, 'saving people's lives' that much. That's the reason why these remaining reasons couldn't become major issues of this debate to reflect decision significantly.

    Thank you very much for reading this long decision.

    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: