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: Ramon Perez Flaquer (Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons) vs. Opposition: Lucas Hinds (Outschool Online - Intermediate)

Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)

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

  • Ramon Perez Flaquer
    Ramon Perez Flaquer
    vs.



    Lucas Hinds
    Lucas Hinds
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 26, 2020 12:41:46AM EST by Ramon Perez Flaquer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 27, 2020 12:43:45AM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    The cost of refugee resettlement in the US is simply too high | TheHill 02/13/18
    https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/373600-the-cost-of-refugee-resettlement-in-the-us-is-simply-too-high

    Posted at May 28, 2020 01:11:37AM EST by Ramon Perez Flaquer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 28, 2020 09:24:16PM EST by Lucas Hinds

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 30, 2020 02:12:35AM EST by Ramon Perez Flaquer

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 31, 2020 11:19:12AM EST by becca steiner

    Category Ramon Perez Flaquer Lucas Hinds
    Use of evidence: 5 5
    Delivery skill: 5.1 5.3
    Coherence of arguments: 5.5 5.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.1 5.3
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: for the first speech
    strengths:
    volume, conversational speed, clear framework, good numbering/lettering of main points, good hand gestures, good to define key terms early in the speech,
    places to improve: the sources of research are very credible, but you should share when the research was written/published. for example, when did danny behar write that article? the end of the speech you started to speak very quickly and you sounded rushed. more practice with the speech can help you either cut material out or finish all your material without sounding rushed.

    for the second speech
    strengths:
    enthusiasm, confidence, vocal variety, outside research
    places to improve: are there other possible responses you can think of than the arguments about war and natural disasters being inevitable? if war and natural disasters are inevitable, why does it matter what country people are in? war or natural disasters are inevitable and could happen anywhere. instead, you might think about researching why funding the United Nations is impractical or a bad idea or why threatening to impose sanctions on countries who refuse to become a democracy historically fails or is a bad idea.

    for the third speech
    strengths:
    hand gestures, volume, vocal variety, enthusiasm
    places to improve: in this speech, the rate of speaking throughout the whole speech seemed very fast and rushed. it is good to bring in new historical examples such as the natural disaster from 1993 costing a lot of money. but it might be better to explain -- did the UN try to give money after that natural disaster? because if they did and it was not enough to help, that would be a specific argument against your opponent's counterplan. or, you could get rid of the 1993 example if it is not related to the United Nations and find an example when the UN tried to help after a natural disaster and it was not enough.
    comments for the first speech
    strengths:
    volume, eye contact, conversational speed, vocal variety, creative counterplan
    places to improve: I am not sure how different your framework is from the framework set up by the proposition team. it seems like you both are interested in economic prosperity and value to life. maybe spend more time explaining what the important differences are between the two frameworks or agree to the same one the proposition brought up.

    for the second speech
    strengths:
    good volume, good vocal variety, good organization, good identification of opponent arguments and response.
    places to improve: it would be helpful to share the publish date of your research on war and peace statistics and the research from Foreign Policy.com . in the first speech you elaborated on the possibility of instituting democracy and threatening sanctions for countries who do not comply. the second speech did not cover this portion of the counterplan. do you still want to advance this idea? if so, include more in the speech about this idea. it was a part of the counterplan the opponent did not address, so I think it would be a good idea to include it.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Lucas Hinds

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good debate https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif

    At the end of the debate, both teams think the debate should be measured by who helps refugees and nation states economically and socially/quality of life for individuals.

    The most important points for the proposition were that a number of people want to become legal refugees due to war and natural disasters. this would help the economy of the host nation to accept new people into the country with cultural skills.

    the most important points from the opposition were that funding the United Nations can address wars, political conflict, and provide disaster relief as well as support for healthcare and education. This would help improve international trade and cost less than an unconditional legal refugee system.

    It was a close debate but I was compelled to vote for the opposition because I thought there were no arguments against the United Nations and funding them as a solution. It was asserted that no amount of money is enough to help with natural disasters, but there was no evidence to support the claim that with increased United Nations funding, it would not dramatically help the situation or why UN peacekeepers would do a poor job managing conflict in places that have political conflict/where people are dying. I thought the counterplan could more effectively solve some of the significant issues and harms brought up by the proposition and possible have an added benefit of international trade or saving money because an unconditional refugee system would be too expensive.


    1 Comment

    This was one of the closest debates I've been in this tournament! Thank you for an exciting debate. - Lucas Hinds on May 31, 2020 at 12:19PM 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