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: Aika Miyazawa (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Nathan Stouffer (Wood River High School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Aika Miyazawa
    Aika Miyazawa

    Nathan Stouffer
    Nathan Stouffer
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2017 03:03:00AM EST by Aika Miyazawa



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2017 05:02:49PM EST by Nathan Stouffer



    US News evidence:

    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. <>.

    Posted at April 26, 2017 08:31:38AM EST by Aika Miyazawa



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 27, 2017 07:57:51PM EST by Nathan Stouffer



    Thanks for a great round!

    Posted at April 28, 2017 08:54:40AM EST by Aika Miyazawa



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 30, 2017 09:41:07PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Aika Miyazawa Nathan Stouffer
    Use of evidence: 3.3 4.3
    Delivery skill: 5 4.7
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 3.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 4.2
    Identification of key points: 3.7 4.1
    Comments: I think you do a good job leading off by putting a human face on the refugee problem. I think you should weigh it against the potential utilitarian concerns the opp might bring up. You could do that easily when you get to your child marriage arguments. I wish you provided written cites for the sources your verbally quote from. It makes for better debates and evidence comparison. What's the terminal impact economic growth an unemployment?

    Good job answering each one of the opp's answers to your contentions one by one. You do a great job at saying what argument you're answering and then responding to each one. The biggest issue with your speech is framing. Why should I vote for you? Don't be on the defensive as much as you are. Make sure you keep your focus on why you win the round.

    Make sure you answer the value criteria that the opp makes and/or frame a different role of the ballot. You say "no link, and no impact" but you should directly explain why you outweigh it.
    I like how you start off with a clear role of the ballot in relation to the social contract. However, I think you could do a better job at outlining the terminal impact of political legitimacy / sovereignty. I guess it's the "natural law and disregard of all rights" according to your speech. I would like to see some more time spent on that explaining what that means and how it turns the prop's contentions. Good job answering the studies and evidence the prop brings up. Also good job numbering your arguments. You make it very easy to flow, which is nice.

    Good job starting off with the framing of the ballot in relation to the Hobbsean criteria. However, I would say you could do more in explaining how opening borders destroys political legitimacy. Why does it link to the prop? Explain the story fully to make the judge more comfortable voting on it. I would have liked to see some sort of counter-plan that would be able to achieve the political legitimacy you want while at the same time helping solve for the refugee crisis.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Nathan Stouffer

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the prop since the value criteria gets dropped in the rebuttal speech. Even though it gets answered in the closing speech (briefly) I think these answers are semi-new and given the opp doesn't have another speech to respond I err against including them. Even if I did include them the opp does explain that at least two countries don't want to open their borders and doing so would be a violation of their political legitimacy (which is the link). There is no counter-impact framing by the prop for me to determine that economic growth or benefits outweigh political legitimacy / the value criteria for the round. More directly weigh your impacts and it'll make it much harder to lose on arguments like this. Good debate!

    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: