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: Kim-Ha Nguyen (PHT) vs. Opposition: Ramon Perez Flaquer (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons)

Judge: Ian Miller (University of Oklahoma)

Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.

  • Kim-Ha Nguyen
    Kim-Ha Nguyen
    vs.



    Ramon Perez Flaquer
    Ramon Perez Flaquer
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 24, 2020 11:59:50PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html
    https://blog.amnestyusa.org/refugees/everyone-has-the-right-to-seek-asylum/

    Posted at May 26, 2020 11:55:41PM EST by Ramon Perez Flaquer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 27, 2020 08:16:25AM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 29, 2020 12:44:41AM EST by Ramon Perez Flaquer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 29, 2020 06:18:44AM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 31, 2020 01:24:00PM EST by Ian Miller

    Category Kim-Ha Nguyen Ramon Perez Flaquer
    Use of evidence: 4.6 4.2
    Delivery skill: 4.4 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.4 4.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.4 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4.4 4.1
    Comments: Great speeches - and you were persuasive when you questioned how refugees would get jobs while in housing. You could include more statistics about refugee deaths to make your arguments stronger. You had good speeches - but didn't address enough of the propositions moral framework - which was pretty important throughout the debate. I liked the counterplan but it would be good to answer some of the questions the proposition asks about it. (e.g. how could they get jobs?, could they ever leave the housing?, ect.)

    The decision is for the Proposition: Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition wins a strong moral framework that counters the opposition's arguments. Simply, that refugees will die in their home country. This was impacted throughout the debate and was persuasive to me.

    The counterplan (build housing) was interesting but does not solve this argument because it does not let refugees leave their country. The proposition also has arguments that perhaps housing will be discriminatory and prevent people from seeking jobs.

    The economy arguments did not have a lot of support from either side - both point out a lack of evidence despite not giving much evidence of their own. If more statistics or studies were mentioned then this would be a bigger issue.

    Absent this concrete evidence, it is hard for me to weigh the oppositions claims about things like overcrowding and economic harms when the proposition has a developed and persuasive moral framework.



    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