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: Sakasai Sora (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Clara Harding (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.

  • Sakasai Sora
    Sakasai Sora

    Clara Harding
    Clara Harding
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 1, 2017 12:03:12PM EST by Sakasai Sora



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2017 11:20:58PM 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 May 3, 2017 09:10:00PM EST by Sakasai Sora



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 4, 2017 11:30:09PM EST by Clara Harding



    Posted at May 6, 2017 07:39:23AM EST by Sakasai Sora



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 7, 2017 12:56:19AM EST by Min Seob Lee

    Category Sakasai Sora Clara Harding
    Use of evidence: 4 4.1
    Delivery skill: 3.9 3.8
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 4.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4 4.3
    Comments: There are the things what you could be better below.

    1. If accepting refugees are truly good to the economy of developed countries, why we need open borders by following your model because developed countries already try to voluntarily open their borders to refugees because of your economic benefits. In that case, you could say sovereignty is not the issue.

    2. To decide how much capacity for accepting refugees developed country has, not only expected welfare level for refugees, but also how the native citizens of developed countries react to the newcomers. Maybe you could use economic benefit again that it is mutual benefit for refugees and native citizens in developed country both. In that case, the native citizens can show more tolerance.
    There are the things what you could be better below.

    1. If sovereignty is the real issue, why it is ok to left middle east countries where refugees are too many so it already hinder each nation's own sovereignty currently? Even if they try to block borders, refugees flow in and these countries are overcrowded.

    2. Opportunity cost point was good. But the problem is if terrorist groups and other armies invade the refugee camps and because it is close from the conflicting zones, and plus if we cannot solve the very cause of refugees, regardless of difference of market price to each countries, cost will be spend endlessly.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Clara Harding

    Reason for Decision:

    It was good debate. But both side spoke a little bit fast(especially opposition speaker). It is the debate format which allow your opponent and judge can see video several times, plus can change video streaming speed, so you are fortunate in this time.

    1. Even if there are some economic benefit exist in developed countries by accepting refugees, if there are loss of lives and other kind of dangers exist while refugees come developed countries like opp said, lacking response from the opposition in this point lead to oppositions' suggestion is looked like better way to saving lives of refugees because we can save unnecessary loss of lives of refugees.

    2. Economic benefit from the proposition side has been neutralized by the price gap from oppositions and comparison about effectiveness between gov's model versus opp's model. Although opposition also didn't explain how accepting refugees will negatively impact to the citizens in the developed countries specifically, so this clash goes neither side anyhow.

    3. The issue of sovereignty was not responded from the proposition. But as long as the proposition mainly focus about how accepting refugees will be beneficial to host countries, the debate was decided by which speakers show better benefit/harm comparison from their suggestions.

    Thank you very much for reading this long reasons and good luck in your future life endeavors!

    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: