Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 25, 2020 10:40:05PM EST by Chris Mok
Posted at May 27, 2020 05:47:26AM EST by Vera Tolari
- Dominik Hangartner, Elias Dinas, Moritz Marbach, Konstantinos Matakos, and Dimitrios Xefteris 05/2019 (American Political Science Review, Vol. 113 Issue 2, "Does Exposure to the Refugee Crisis Make Natives More Hostile?") https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/does-exposure-to-the-refugee-crisis-make-natives-more-hostile/3E66D9B39336C652F9EF6D7EF9DF0735/core-reader
- Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 07/02/2019 (McMaster University, Trames Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 23 Issue 2, "Can There Be A ‘Safe Haven’ For Trauma Survivors In This Social Media Dominated World?") http://www.kirj.ee/public/trames_pdf/2019/issue_2/Trames-2019-2-223-238.pdf
- Zach Hindin and Mario Ariza 05/23/2016 (The Atlantic, "When Nativism Becomes Normal: The Source of the Western Hemisphere's Worst Refugee Crisis") https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/dominican-republic-la-sentencia/483998/
- Anti-Defamation League 11/2018 ("Mainstreaming Hate: The Anti-Immigrant Movement in the U.S.") https://www.adl.org/media/12249/download
- Horst Entorf and Martin Lange 01/30/2019 (IZA Institute of Labor Economics, "Refugees Welcome? Understanding the Regional Heterogeneity of Anti-Foreigner Hate Crimes in Germany") https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=814097103098091068017112026072075029017056072092062036000099081108096020030125031027043029022061045007055002106070085024127071029094032037017025126105073077094030077082001065122084108015093090004068103066102120113125070030101065068113010100106002093&EXT=pdf
- Claudio Detotto and Edoardo Otranto 07/14/2010 (Kyklos International Review for Social Sciences Vol. 63 Issue3, "Does Crime Affect Economic Growth?") https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.00477.x
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2017 (The World Factbook, "Country Comparison: Life Expectancy At Birth") https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
- The World Bank 2018 ("Population Density") https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?end=2018&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=2018&view=map&year=2018
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 12/2017 ("Protecting Refugees") https://www.unhcr.org/cy/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2018/05/UNHCR_Brochure_EN.pdf
- Shabia Mantoo 02/19/2019 (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Less than 5 per cent of global refugee resettlement needs met last year") https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2019/2/5c6bc9704/5-cent-global-refugee-resettlement-needs-met-year.html
Posted at May 29, 2020 09:40:21AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 05:12:12PM EST by David Kane
|Category||Chris Mok||Vera Tolari|
|Use of evidence:||3||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||2.7||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||4||4.5|
|Comments:||In your last speech you argued that there should be a moral not an practical framework for the debate. However the time for establishing a framework like that is in your constructive not the last speech of the debate.
Even if you are making such an argument, you let far too many of your opponent's arguments go unanswered. You didn't say anything in either rebuttal about the argument about the definition of a legal refugee. You didn't revisit the argument in the last rebuttal about the impact of too many refugees on in hate crimes, or the reality of refugees arriving in poor countries.
|You did a good job of mixing evidence and examples to refute your opponents case. The thread about the specific circumstances of particular countries was a good illustration.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Vera Tolari
Reason for Decision:
In the last rebuttal the proposition said that governments had a moral obligation to help, and that the practical issues raised were not as important. While I thought it was a little late in the debate to introduce that framework, taking it at face value for a moment, the opposition still won the debate on those grounds. The opposition answered the question of how to address the obligation to help ( by addressing the core problems in the countries that people are fleeing ) without needing to support unconditional acceptance of legal refugees.
The last proposition rebuttal left the oppositions attack on the practicality largely uncontested. (e.g. impact on hate crimes, impact on poor countries, lack of connection to extremism)
So using either the proposition's or the opposition's frameworks, the opposition won the debate.