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: hideyuki tanaka (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Sascha Leidecker (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.

  • hideyuki tanaka
    hideyuki tanaka

    Sascha Leidecker
    Sascha Leidecker
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 1, 2017 04:25:41AM EST by hideyuki tanaka



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2017 11:03:20PM EST by Sascha Leidecker



    Sweis, Rana F. "Syrian Refugees Strain Resources in Jordan." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Jan. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.

    Hilton, Steven. “Syrian refugee crisis outstrips international aid”. The Seattle Times, March 28th, 2015. < >

    The Economist. "For Good or Ill." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 23 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Sheahen, Laura. "Viewpoints: Impact of Syrian Refugees on Host Countries." BBC News. BBC, 24 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

    Posted at May 4, 2017 02:32:05AM EST by hideyuki tanaka



    Posted at May 4, 2017 11:35:10PM EST by Sascha Leidecker



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 6, 2017 05:03:48AM EST by hideyuki tanaka



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 7, 2017 06:16:56PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category hideyuki tanaka Sascha Leidecker
    Use of evidence: 4.1 4.5
    Delivery skill: 4.3 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 4
    Identification of key points: 4.1 3.8
    Comments: I always think you should provide your sources so your opponents can look up and debate the quality of your evidence. You do a good job outlining the impact of the refugee crisis. However, I think you should spend more time in establishing how voting for you would help solve those problems. Just because closed borders are bad, doesn't mean that just opening all borders would solve the problems. Also, what's the terminal impact of economic growth? Who cares?

    I like your argument about how spreading out refugees helps to solve the current problems with how refugees are migrating. I appreciate that you provided a source. The next step is to explain why your evidence (the guardian evidence) is preferable to the opp's evidence. Also, again, impact out why the economy matters or why the humanitarian crisis matters. Pick one. Make something the biggest impact in the round and contextualize my ballot.
    I would suggest emphasizing a singular reason to negate at the start of your speech instead of just poking holes in the prop's case. Who cares if there might not be enough resources, or if they don't solve the root of the refugee problem? Why do either of those serve as a reason to vote for you? In short, you need to do a better job implicating your arguments so that way the terminal impact is clear and the judge understands how you think the argument should be weighed. It's not that the arguments you are making are bad. It's that you aren't explaining what I should do with those arguments (maybe vote opp on presumption if you don't have a bigger independent impact to draw out). Because even if I give you all your arguments, my question would still be: why not go ahead and try? (essentially because many of your objections seem non-unique).

    Why is your evidence better than your opponent's evidence? You both have evidence that says different things. If you do this work for me it's better since it means you're debating it instead of forcing the judge to decide for themselves. To prove that the prop just makes the situation worse you really need to do a lot on that argument to win the round on it exclusively. I suggest pairing that argument with something that can have external impacts beyond the case itself.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Sascha Leidecker

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the opposition because even if borders are opened most refugees will still only immigrant to nearby countries. Thus, the prop doesn't win the distribution argument, which is the only answer to how refugees won't end up in worse overcrowded conditions that also hurt the economy. In order for the prop to win this round they need to win that open borders will cause refugees to more evenly distribute themselves. The argument that they will ends up more of an assertion toward the end of the debate. The opp provides warrants and evidence as to why refugees would still stay as close to home as possible. It would have been better if both sides weighed out whose evidence was better and compared warrants though.

    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: