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: Kana Watanabe (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Clara Harding (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.

  • Kana Watanabe
    Kana Watanabe

    Clara Harding
    Clara Harding
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2017 07:39:05PM EST by Kana Watanabe



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2017 09:54:53PM EST by Clara Harding



    Refugees Laws And Sovereignty Of The State. "Refugee Laws and Sovereignty of the State."Refugees Laws and Sovereignty of the State. Refugees Laws and Sovereignty of the State(n.d.): n. pag. ARDD - Legal Aid. ARDD - Legal Aid, 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2017.

    "Why Is EU Struggling with Migrants and Asylum?" BBC News. BBC, 03 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Zeigler, Karen. "The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees." Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 03 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Williams, Rob. "Syrian Refugees Will Cost Ten times More to Care for in Europe than in Neighboring Countries." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 13 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Posted at April 27, 2017 04:59:19AM EST by Kana Watanabe



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 27, 2017 10:18:14PM EST by Clara Harding



    Posted at April 28, 2017 05:36:08PM EST by Kana Watanabe



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 30, 2017 09:32:56AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Kana Watanabe Clara Harding
    Use of evidence: 3.3 4.1
    Delivery skill: 4 3.8
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 3.9
    Identification of key points: 4.2 4.3
    Comments: You do a good job at outlining the problems of the current refugee crisis and getting into the impacts. You could do better at framing the ballot and explaining how I should approach the round as a judge (ie begin highlighting the key points that you intend to win on). Also, please provide citations in the future instead of just verbally referencing them. I like your argument about spreading out refugees as a way to deal with the problem of over-flooding individual nations. The other thing you could do a little better is explain the terminal impact to your impacts (ie how cares about economic growth? why is that important and a voting issue).

    In relation to the economy, you should explain why GDP growth is a more important economic factor than cost on taxpayers. Also start making arguments as to why your evidence is better. Good job turning the smuggling scenario. But why does this impact outweigh some of the additional impacts? You do a good job citing information verbally to counter you opponent (I wish you'd also give the links to the cites). But, again, you are not doing a great job at weighing your impacts and explaining why the economy is more important than other potential impacts. You need to make sure that if you win one of your contentions that you win the round versus just that contention.

    New evidence in your closing speech is too new since your opponent doesn't have a chance to respond. If this is evidence you read earlier, you should reference it as "evidence I read in my earlier speech" or something. If you provided written cites I could figure this out myself easier as well.
    What's the terminal impact to sovereignty? Why does it outweigh economy, refugee rights, etc? Especially when you say state sovereignty justifies the ability for states to wage war. Why would I want to protect a sovereign system that enables war? I like your sovereignty argument but I don't think you impact it particularly well in your opening speech. I also think your smuggling scenario flips against you since the death you mention are as a result of ILLEGAL migration. You need to be more clear on the deaths that happen as a result of LEGAL immigration. Your desolate refugee camp argument is good; I also like the counter-plan you articular afterwards. I would suggest formalizing it a bit more so it's clear that it's what your advocating versus the status-quo.

    Your second video is recorded on a low volume and has some sound issues that make it hard to hear. Again, I'm not sure what the impact to sovereignty is? I guess you're saying war but you aren't good at explaining the warrant as to why violating sovereignty that it makes it more likely for war to happen. Ok, I guess you get there at about 90 seconds in. What I would still suggest is weighing that potential war scenario against the rights and economy impacts of the prop. I don't think she entirely drops your counter-plan type argument. She has answers that applies but not explicitly against it as a counter-plan. But given that it's not super formalized in you opening speech I'd be alright with the prop morphing some of those arguments in her last speech to answer the more clear explanation of it in your closing speech.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Clara Harding

    Reason for Decision:

    This debate is tough to judge because neither side is directly comparing their impacts. Why does economy outweigh sovereignty or vice versa? In this regards no one is doing evidence comparison either so when you both have evidence that says different things I have no way to determine which evidence to prefer. You both should debate these points.

    Ultimately, I vote for the opp because I don't hear an answer to the sovereignty argument. If opening borders violates state sovereignty, which causes war (warrant at about 90 in 2nd opp speech) that 1. enables the conditions that causes refugees; and 2. just kills people. I think the opp could do a better job at explaining how big this war will get. Could it cause extinction and 100% outweigh the prop? But given it's tough for me to compare evidence on the other impact scenarios without intervening I default to voting for the independent external impact of war.

    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: