Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: This house believes that the borders of nation-states should not prevent the movement of refugees.
|Click to begin|
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. <http://www.pnas.org/content/113/27/7449.full>.
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
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
Feel free to email me with any questions or concerned related to this round at email@example.com
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.
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|
|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."