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: Jake Gorham (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Sakasai Sora (Shorin Global)

Judge: Candice Williams (Rufus King High School)

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

  • Jake Gorham
    Jake Gorham

    Sakasai Sora
    Sakasai Sora
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 1, 2017 10:36:27AM EST by Jake Gorham



    Ewing, Walter. "Human Rights Abuses Along U.S.-Mexico Border Underscore Need for Reform." Immigration Impact. Immigration Impact, 31 Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee. "Border Repression and Human Rights." Alliance for Global Justice. Alliance For Global Justice, 11 Feb. [in] 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Roth, JD. "Warren Buffett on the Lottery of Birth." Get Rich Slowly. N.p., 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. .

    Miles-Mojab, Donna. "Donna Miles-Mojab: Refugees and the Lottery of Life." NZ Herald, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 4 Oct. 2015.

    Good luck! If the audio isn't working out on your end, let me know and I'll post the written form of my speech in the comments.

    Posted at May 3, 2017 06:52:59AM EST by Sakasai Sora



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 4, 2017 06:09:27PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    Wikipedia. "Immigration by Country." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Apr. 2017. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

    Posted at May 5, 2017 07:42:32AM EST by Sakasai Sora



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 5, 2017 04:17:12PM EST by Jake Gorham



    Thank you for your time Judge and Sakasai!


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 5, 2017 06:35:30PM EST by Candice Williams

    Category Jake Gorham Sakasai Sora
    Use of evidence: 4 4
    Delivery skill: 3 3
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 4.5
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: 1) You do a good of responding to your opponent's arguments; especially in the last speech where you do a good job of extending across your own case and impacting it out and then using those responses offensively.
    2) You need to do a better job of attacking their framework and explaining why the framework you offer is a better way for the judge to evaluate the round.
    3) You shouldn't concede that neither team can solve for immigrant the Prop world, where borders are open, immigrant smuggling becomes unnecessary.
    1) Very nice job engaging your opponent's arguments
    2) You need to do a better job of attacking their framework and explaining why the framework you offer is a better way for the judge to evaluate the round.
    3) You spend a lot of time on the U.S. argument. While I ultimately find it somewhat persuasive, that the U.S. is perhaps not a model for other nations, it seems like the impacts you offer (increased refugees/crowding/smuggling) are solved for in the world of the Proposition.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Jake Gorham

    Reason for Decision:

    Both teams do a good job of engaging the opposing team's arguments on the line by line. In judging the round, the problem ends up becoming the fact that each team has offered a framework for deciding the round and then debates with respect to their framework but neither affirms or debates the other team's framework. The framework offered by the Proposition is: The debate is won by the team that best protects human rights. The Opposition framework is: The debate should be about whether or not refugees are the best actors for determining their own movement.

    Ultimately, not only do I have to decide who did the better job of debating but I also have to determine which framework I prefer because neither team explains or offers reasons why their framework is better. Ultimately, based on the argumentation that comes out of the debate by both teams in terms of impacts, the Proposition framework is a better way to evaluate the round.

    So...the Proposition offers four reasons as to why borders engender human right's violations. The Opposition explains why coordinated movement of refugees results in a better preservation of resources and prevents smuggling. Ultimately, the Opposition concedes the arguments put forth by Proposition...that borders produce HR violations. Additionally, the Opposition would seem to turn themselves a bit when they argue that border detention centers are overcrowded and results in greater HR violations...but then doesn't respond to the idea that there wouldn't be any detention centers in the world of the Proposition. This is similar with the immigrant smuggling the world of the Proposition, refugees can move freely so there is no need for smuggling.

    Ultimately, the only way I can vote for the Opposition at the end of the round is if they win that increased refugees depletes state resources. But since there is no impact to a decline in resources other than potential HR violations, I vote Proposition because of greater solvency for HR violations.

    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: