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: Alexis Drozdowski (Binghamton West Middle) vs. Opposition: Kim-Ha Nguyen (PHT)

Judge: Ian Miller (University of Oklahoma)

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

  • Alexis Drozdowski
    Alexis Drozdowski
    vs.



    Kim-Ha Nguyen
    Kim-Ha Nguyen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 25, 2020 10:11:20PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 26, 2020 11:10:16PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 27, 2020 10:56:23PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 28, 2020 09:23:33PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 29, 2020 08:15:56PM EST by Alexis Drozdowski

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 30, 2020 12:39:05PM EST by Ian Miller

    Category Alexis Drozdowski Kim-Ha Nguyen
    Use of evidence: 4 4.3
    Delivery skill: 4.6 4.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 4.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 4.7
    Identification of key points: 4.5 4.6
    Comments: Good answers to refugees cause terrorism and the definition portion of the debate. I think you were right to point out that the terrorist attack examples were not supported by evidence.

    I think that your points about the economy were very good and should have been brought up later in the debate.
    Great speeches - I like how you handled the counterplan (let countries decide). I think that you could strengthen your position if you focused less on the definitions (whether refugees are/are not immigrants) and instead included more evidence or continued the economy arguments.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Reason for Decision:

    In this debate both sides would improve by developing their arguments throughout the debate more instead of bringing up more evidence every speech. I think that the arguments about the economy should not have been dropped in favor of the terrorism arguments. The points about economic impacts of refugees seem to be supported by more literature and might lead to a more developed debate.

    However, in this debate I ended up voting for the opposition because the counterplan (let countries decide) solves the propositions impacts while also avoiding the risks of refugees entering a harmful environment where they may be at risk of domestic terrorism. I think that the proposition gets too hung up on the other terrorism argument that the opposition makes (refugees cause terrorism) while neglecting the other argument (refugees are the victim of domestic terrorism from far right populist groups) as well as not answering the counterplan.

    In the future, I would try to say more about the counterplan and perhaps question its feasibility (will enough countries say yes?). This would allow the more of the propositions impact (people dying in their home country) to not be solved by the counterplan and bring a closer debate.


    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