Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)
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 26, 2020 07:29:51PM EST by Shea Tamura
Dispersing refugees around a country puts them at an immediate disadvantage – why this matters for integration
Do refugees take away jobs?
World population projections, 2020
Posted at May 28, 2020 03:47:06PM EST by Shea Tamura
Annual flow report
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 07:13:51PM EST by becca steiner
|Category||Lucas Hinds||Shea Tamura|
|Use of evidence:||6||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||6||3|
|Identification of key points:||6||4.5|
|Comments:||for the first speech
strengths: rate of speaking/speed, eye contact, logical pauses, volume, clear stance on resolution, clear framework, good defining an important term in the resolution in the beginning, good transition phrases
in the second speech
strengths: volume, rate of speaking/speed, identifying and summarizing opponent's arguments and providing a response, clear points, clear organization.
places to improve: you can make more than 1 response to each argument the opponent makes. one argument you should focus more of a response to is the argument that there is simply not enough space for refugees in certain countries especially when the world population is growing. lastly, you could remind the judge of important pieces of evidence/outside research from your first speech.
|for the first speech:
strengths: volume, rate of delivery/speed, emphasis on key words and phrases, clear points, good transitions between points
places to improve: share what year your outside research data was found. for example, when was the washington examiner article written? what about the world population project article? lastly, take a position on whether you want to adhere to your opponent's framework for the debate or if you would like to propose a different framework for the debate.
comments for the second speech
strengths & places to improve: this video was confusing to me. I think you accidentally uploaded a video from another debate. In the video you posted, you were making arguments for the pro side of the topic such as refugees are not a burden, they bring new skills, and the whole world should pitch in to help take in refugees, and that refugees are not criminal or security risks. The arguments in this video did not support the opposition side of the topic. However, the delivery aspects such as volume, speed, and eye contact were all very good.
The decision is for the Proposition: Lucas Hinds
Reason for Decision:
Hello I enjoyed watching your debate.
I voted for the proposition team. At the end of the debate I felt the most important points were that nation states ought to unconditionally allow entry for legal refugees because legal refugees' quality of life and individual freedom will increase. in addition, the nation state may also receive economic benefits from refugees in the long term.
One of the obstacles for the opposition team in this debate was that the video for the rebuttal/closing was probably not the video you meant to upload for this debate. Instead, the video the opposition team uploaded in this debate was actually a proposition speech. This speech argued nation states should take in legal refugees, that refugees are not a burden (a direct contradiction with your first speech in which you said legal refugees are a burden and take jobs away from people in the nation state) and that legal refugees bring new skills to their new country.
The debate could have been very different if the correct video was uploaded and you were able to counter the proposition's main points such as legal refugees benefit countries economically in the long term, there are some countries where refugees would not be stealing jobs because certain jobs are open and need to be filled, and that individual freedom from persecution is a moral obligation.