Judge: Arturo Feliz (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)
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 08:51:12PM EST by Katherine Ma
New American Economy. “From Struggle to Resilience: The Economic Impact of Refugees in America.”
The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
Posted at May 27, 2020 12:10:42AM EST by Julianne Barteck
Posted at May 27, 2020 07:01:31PM EST by Katherine Ma
Kathleen Newland, October 2015, Migration Policy
Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown, “The Wall"
Posted at May 29, 2020 04:38:39PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at May 29, 2020 10:19:16PM EST by Katherine Ma
Brennan Hoben, Thursday, August 24, 2017: Do immigrants “steal” jobs from American workers? -https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/08/24/do-immigrants-steal-jobs-from-american-workers/
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 10:08:40AM EST by Arturo Feliz
|Category||Katherine Ma||Julianne Barteck|
|Use of evidence:||2.5||2.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||2.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||3|
|Identification of key points:||3||3|
|Comments:||Katherine You have good delivery skills and clear speech and I like that.
Your case I summarize as, lives, economy, and reputation.
I think you do a good job defending terrorism and pointing out the low numbers.
I feel like your closing is a bit weak, and risky. You're closing in what sounds like a rebuttal, rather than your case and how you outweigh.
|Julianne You're doing a good job at delivery, and making your case.
In your constructive I ID your main arguments as terrorism, wage impacts, H1B visa abuse, and you sort of start refuting repetitional advantages.
I see you later kept terrorism (I assume you dropped the other arguments) and bring in a few new ones in rebuttal.
There's one problem about bringing arguments so late in the game: It doesn't allow your opponent to properly respond to them.
Your argument on the paradox to the Nation-State of admitting refugees without condition is one of the most interesting I've heard, but so late in the game does not allow you to develop it.
Usually a claim about cards or citations should be made earlier. Even if made, I'm not 100% sure I'd give the round just based on that.
You vetting argument towards the end is possibly the best strategic argument and possibly a short-circuiting one if you're not careful. But again, too late into the game.
I feel, these arguments, made in your constructive, would have forced your opponent to defend and tilt the case towards your world, instead of falling on your opponent's world.
The terrorist argument I feel lacks impact. The numbers are just too low.
I'm not buying the resident voting argument. Generally speaking, only citizens have access to voting.
I can't buy your defense on reputation. I don't think I understand it. A nation losing reputation for helping others does not sound typical.
I think you have a lot of good ideas. If you organize more your case you can prevail.
The decision is for the Proposition: Katherine Ma
Reason for Decision:
RFD In the end I feel it comes down to the economy and terrorism. On these arguments I feel proposition gets the advantage.