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 09:26:27PM EST by Zoe Simon
Bier, David. "4 Selfish Reasons to Take in Syrians." Huffington Post, 30 Nov. 2015, www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/4-selfish-reasons-to-take_b_8683600.html. Accessed 24 Apr. 2017.
Matsangou, Elizabeth. "Refugees are an economic benefit, not burden, to Europe." World Finance, 2 Nov. 2015, www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/refugees-are-an-economic-benefit-not-burden-to-europe. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Portes, Jonathan. "Immigration Is Good for Economic Growth. If Europe Gets It Right, Refugees Can Be Too." The World Post, The Huffington Post, 2015, www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-portes/economic-europe-refugees_b_8128288.html. Accessed 15 Apr. 2017.
Posted at April 26, 2017 06:20:37AM EST by Kana Watanabe
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 26, 2017 11:19:48PM EST by Zoe Simon
"Canada increases resources at US border to handle influx of asylum-seekers." The Guardian, 4 Mar. 2017, www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/04/canada-increases-resources-us-border-influx-asylum-seekers. Accessed 26 Apr. 2017.
Bregman, Rutger. "The Surprisingly Compelling Argument for Open Borders." Fortune, 17 Apr. 2016, fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017. (used twice in defense of my second contention and in attacking their first contention)
Posted at April 27, 2017 05:53:51AM EST by Kana Watanabe
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 29, 2017 12:58:08PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Zoe Simon||Kana Watanabe|
|Use of evidence:||4.7||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||3.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.3||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4.5||3.3|
|Comments:||It seems like your first few words are cut off. Run the recording for a second or two before you start speaking. Good job framing your argument at the onset and defining the key terms in relation to the resolution. I also like how you pre-empt a security turn by having a terrorism contention (instead of just rights and economy, which is what almost everyone else has done). Also good job providing cites for the evidence you reference.
Good job using evidence to respond to your opponent. You should make an argument as to why I should prefer your arguments since you have provided sources, whereas her arguments should be weighed as essentially analytics. Take advantage of the evidence you use. I agree with your smuggling turn. But I think there's a better version of the argument that shows how traffickers will exploit legal channels of immigration. Watch out for that version of the argument that may emerge so create a greater diversity of answers. What's the terminal impact to human rights or terrorism? At minimum, weigh your impacts against the opp's arguments.
Why should I prefer your arguments/evidence to your opponents?
|I like how you start out with answering your opponent's argument. However, when you answer her arguments you mostly are making assertions since I don't hear you verbally citing information (and you don't provide textual cites for me to look at). Why should I believe the warrants of a high school student over evidence coming from academics and scholars the prop is citing? It's not that you can't win without having evidence. It just makes it harder because many of the arguments you are making requires a level of expertise beyond what a general person would have. I also don't think your smuggling scenario makes sense since smugglers make their profit from the fact immigration is illegal. If there are legal channels you don't need to be smuggled. There might be some reason why "legal" immigration will be exploited by criminals who will still use the same violence of smuggling by now with a "legal" stamp. However, I don't hear that warrant in your speech or in the cites you quote. I would look at your evidence if I was able to see if it backs up your claim; but from what I hear it says refugees uses smuggling so current refugee migration is bad. Opening borders turns that argument unless I'm missing something.
You really need to start with why you win the round, not just nitpicking random things the prop said. I would suggest formalizing your "we need coordination" argument into a counter-plan so that way you can say voting for the opposition means voting for a coordinated international refugee policy instead of just an opening of borders. However, when it comes off just as "we need coordination" it still seems like open borders without coordination is better than closed borders without coordination. You do get around to your smugglers can profit from legal immigration argument in your speech... but then you immediately follow it up with a stat about refugees dying due to immigration that resulted from closed borders.
The decision is for the Proposition: Zoe Simon
Reason for Decision:
I vote on the terrorism impact since it goes largely unanswered and outweighs smuggling (even if I believe it increases). Closed borders promotes anti-Western sentiment that makes for easier ISIS recruitment. Opening borders ends that sentiment, gutting recruitment, and helping end an anti-Western sentiment (probably not given Trump as President, but that argument isn't made). The opp should weigh your smuggling argument against the prop and explain why it's a bigger impact. Also, I think you need to be clearer from the onset on how LEGAL migration would increase ILLEGAL smuggling operations since most of the stats and deaths you reference happen as a result of ILLEGAL immigration. Your closing speech has a warrant or two for why. Put those in your opener, get rid of the contradictory parts, and I think you have a decent argument that can turn most prop speeches. In this debate though, without weighing your impacts against the terrorism scenario it's tough for you to win since the prop has framed it as a voter in each speech. Better opp framing is the major take away.