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: Jack Keating (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Matthew Slencsak (Kent State University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Jack  Keating
    Jack Keating

    Matthew Slencsak
    Matthew Slencsak
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 1, 2017 10:47:32AM EST by Jack Keating



    Taylor, J. Edward, Mateusz J. Filipski, Mohamad Alloush, Anubha Guptaa, and And Ruben Irvin Rojas Valdes. "J. Edward Taylor." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. National Acad Sciences, 12 May 2016. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. <>.

    Strindberg, Anna. "Five Reasons Why the Majority of Refugees Reaching Europe Are Men." Global Citizen. N.p., 19 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

    Obradovic, Marja. "Protecting Female Refugees against Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Camps." United Nations University. N.p., 9jbh,u Nov. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

    Posted at May 3, 2017 01:24:49AM EST by Matthew Slencsak



    First I'd like to thank my opponent for providing a citation when asked. I'd also like to point out to the judge that while my opponent did forget to cite the phibbs 16 card in the citation section, he provided a citation upon request and thus shouldn't be docked speaker points over it.

    Full speech doc

    Oxford English Dictionary

    Surgener 11


    Rabkin 2k

    Blake 2001

    Cafaro & Staples 09

    End of Case
    I don't formally cut cards from gerson but I do summarize his theory on morality. So I'll include the source

    Bostrom 11

    Feel free to email me with any questions or concerned related to this round at

    Posted at May 3, 2017 10:12:17PM EST by Jack Keating



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 5, 2017 12:42:06AM EST by Matthew Slencsak



    Full Speech Doc

    I don't read anything new here. Thanks for an excellent round and Good luck on your next speech. I'd also like to thank the judge for taking the time to evaluate this weeks debate.

    Posted at May 5, 2017 05:50:33PM EST by Jack Keating



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 7, 2017 06:38:26PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Jack Keating Matthew Slencsak
    Use of evidence: 4.5 5
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.9
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.2 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4.8 4.5
    Comments: I like how you clearly start the round by contextualizing how I should decide the round on morality. I think you should not pick "consequentialism" as your moral base on this resolution. Deontological approaches to ethics ala Levinas makes more sense to me since it sidesteps any utilitarian-based impacts (getting you past any economic or terrorism debates so you can just focus on we are morally compelled to help people). If you are going to go with consquentialism you should get to the terminal impact of economic growth versus decline. Or roll a patriarchy impact card after your women and children scenario.

    Compare your evidence against your opponent's and give a reason to prefer your opponent. You need more offense against the state sovereignty framework. If you used a more deontological perspective it would be easier to turn state sovereignty as an immoral tool of policy. It would be useful to add an extra source or two in this speech to respond to some of the unique objections the opp brings up. What's the biggest impact in the round? Why should I vote for you? Start narrowing the debate and increasing your depth of impact analysis.

    Again, the we can save the lives in front of us morality should come from a Levinasian strain of philosophy, which is about the moment of the encounter (and which is often at odds with consequentialism).
    I like how you lock down definitions as a way to define the context of the debate and setup the ballot and a procedural argument. Your "house building card" is a so-so piece of evidence at best. Get a better card. In this debate, I would suggest you providing a traditional road map and more formally create off-case arguments. While you define the terms of the debate well, you could do a better job at explaining what voting for the opp does. Try to not just frame the ballot as a reason to reject the prop, also use it as a reason to vote for you (maybe with some sort of counter-advocacy). Good job with coverage of the aff case. I also would have loved to see an impact turn strategy (econ growth bad) etc.

    Extending the dropping of "should" and the "house" in order to show what the resolution requires. What is the impact to "law and order" or "legitimacy"? Good job re-clarifying your arguments to explain why your argument isn't a contradiction.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Matthew Slencsak

    Reason for Decision:

    Dropping the definition of "should" in the rebuttal speech is rough since it means as per the opp's opening speech the prop has to focus on the necessity of preserving state legitimacy. Even if it isn't impacted out terribly well, if it's the definition of the round and the ballot that's how I need to frame the round.

    Even if I give the prop your consequentialism that framework still needs to be understood within the world of state-based consequentialism and not individual morality. This means I vote to preserve state sovereignty, which is more important than refugee rights as per "should."


    In this case by more formally saying something like "My fist off-case is my counter-plan, which is <insert text>." "My next off-case is my dis-ad, the link is..." Versus just talking. When I flow those designations cause me to put it on a separate page, which gives it more attention (instead of it just being one point among a couple on one sheet of paper). Separating it out and formalizing it create more urgency in the judge's mind... although sometimes hiding it works as a strategic advantage because it's more likely to get dropped. Personally I like a more in-depth debate than trying to hide things. - Joe Leeson-Schatz on May 24, 2017 at 07:21PM EST
    Dr. Leeson-Schatz,
    Thank you for the ballot. I was reading your comments and agree with almost everything, but was curious about how I could go about turning some arguments into more formal off case positions? I'd really appreciate your advice. Thank you. - Matthew Slencsak on May 24, 2017 at 11:28AM EST

    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: