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: Lucas Hinds (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Miranda Chiguma (Binghamton East Middle)

Judge: Trevor Reddick (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: Week 3: This House Believes That Nation-States Have an Obligation to Unconditionally Allow Entry for Legal Refugees.

  • Lucas Hinds
    Lucas Hinds
    vs.



    Miranda Chiguma
    Miranda Chiguma
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 11, 2020 10:05:35PM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 13, 2020 12:07:56AM EST by Miranda Chiguma

    Citations

    Show

    https://outofyourrut.com/7-reasons-universal-healthcare-wont-work-us/


    https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/why-single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse-americans

    Posted at May 13, 2020 09:54:42PM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 14, 2020 11:07:43PM EST by Miranda Chiguma

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 15, 2020 11:31:13PM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 17, 2020 05:19:24PM EST by Trevor Reddick

    Category Lucas Hinds Miranda Chiguma
    Use of evidence: 3.5 4
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.6 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 3.5
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.5
    Comments: Make sure to include citations for your evidence with the videos!

    Good job, and good luck!
    Make sure to use all of your time! You had 2.5 minutes of unused time in the first speech. Don't waste it! Use that time to respond to the affirmative's definitions and evidence in the first speech.

    Make sure to include citations for your evidence with the videos!

    Good luck!

    Thank you for explaining your use of acronyms, made what you meant very clear!

    The decision is for the Opposition: Miranda Chiguma

    Reason for Decision:

    The Proposition describes a complex system for billing a universal healthcare plan, but doesn't do a good enough job of explaining how those costs relate to existing coverage: How does the cost of the system you propose compare to cost of medicare + private insurers right now? Does medicare exist in your world?

    I conclude that either

    Proposition removes medicare and other existing public insurance and shifts to paying a percentage of all private insurance costs. I don't know why such a system would increase access for low-income people, and as the Opposition argues it might increase those costs

    OR

    The Proposition supports a true public option, where there would be a supplemental insurance plan like medicare expanded to cover costs for all citizens. I think that would trigger all of the Oppositions arguments about how increased medicare billing will destroy quality of care, meaning if more people access it it won't be good.

    Proposition needs to be clearer on what their system is and how their systems costs and function compare to the critiques the Opposition forwards. In conclusion: You say that the Proposition is not what the Opposition has described it as, but I don't know why that is true.

    Good debate, and good luck!


    3 Comments

    Don't worry about asking questions, it is of course your right and I want to assist as I can.

    I found what you proposed unclear because I do not understand what it means for existing government programs. When explaining why it wouldn't cost as much as your opponent is saying it would, explain to me why, instead of simply asserting it is different. Explaining why it is different will help me to understand the difference and help me vote for you.

    For example, does your Proposition eliminate medicare? If Medicare doesn't exist anymore because the government is exclusively paying on a per capita basis according to the terms you gave, what is the estimate of costs that would be incurred? Is it more, or less than the cost of the current system, and why? Answering these questions makes it clearer for me what you're defending, and why the Opposition's arguments don't apply. This should make it clear for other judges as well.

    As to your opponent not "blocking" your speech points, I believe the Opposition's points are responsive. For instance, the Opposition Constructive provided multiple pieces of evidence estimating that taxes and additional costs borne by families for government-payer healthcare systems could be too expensive for them to bear, and that government payments can be too low for private healthcare to be profitable. That argument was later extended in the Opposition Rebuttal & Closing when discussing how doctors reported cuts in profits from government payouts would cause doctors to cut quality of care, close blood labs, or leave the industry. These kind of arguments I believe are responsive and paint a picture for why the system you're proposing might be worse than private healthcare without government involvement.

    You did say, as you should, that the Opposition's arguments don't apply. Now you need to explain more of what you do and why their thesis is wrong. That will provide next level clash, make the debate more engaging, and clarify what I'm voting for.

    Thanks for a good debate. Let me know if you would like any more information, or if I can help by providing any other feedback! - Trevor Reddick on May 17, 2020 at 07:12PM EST
    P.S. I am not trying to be a bad sport or change your decision, I was just wondering. I hope to become a better debater through your response

    Sincerely,
    Lucas Hinds - Lucas Hinds on May 17, 2020 at 06:26PM EST
    Why is my system "unclear." Even if we assume this is true, my opponent blocked none of my first speech points. Also, there isn't a true way to say how much it would cost, but my point was that as I explained in my second speech my plan would be less than the plans she presented and attacked. Also, my opponent has to make a point that it would be unclear, and she didn't do that. - Lucas Hinds on May 17, 2020 at 05:53PM 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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT