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: Shea Tamura (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Seralena Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton West Middle)

Judge: Brittney Bleyle (Austin Peay State University)

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

  • Shea Tamura
    Shea Tamura

    Seralena Leeson-Schatz
    Seralena Leeson-Schatz
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at May 26, 2020 01:39:52AM EST by Shea Tamura



    Refugee Law and Human Rights

    United Nations

    Brookings Institute, Refugees are a Win Win Formula for Economic Development

    Center for Immigration Studies

    By Nayla Rush on October 1, 2018

    Posted at May 27, 2020 12:11:41AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    Posted at May 28, 2020 05:32:30PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 28, 2020 11:17:45PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 29, 2020 07:13:19PM EST by Shea Tamura



    The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant/Refugee


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 31, 2020 01:00:20AM EST by Brittney Bleyle

    Category Shea Tamura Seralena Leeson-Schatz
    Use of evidence: 4 2.9
    Delivery skill: 4.4 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 3.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.6 4.6
    Identification of key points: 4.1 4.6
    Comments: Great debate! You are a very confident speaker and have a clear speaking style, which is very good. I'm not quite sure where you are going with your arguments about trying to help solve issues in other countries in order to prevent refugees from needing to be refugees. I think I would need more clarity on that argument in order to vote for it. How would it work? How soon would it happen? How would your plan be able to implement it? Can you justify that this is topical and within the confines of what the resolution allows you to confirm? I think if I had answers to those questions from you and more information, I might have felt more comfortable voting on that argument. Hey, I think you are doing a great job at your line by line arguments, and just being responsive in general to your opponents arguments. I think it's important still in your rebuttal and closing to narrow down to a few really important topics you want to talk about in your speech and really hone all of your energy there. If you pick 2 or 3 of the arguments you feel are your best arguments, and speak about them solely, it will give you more time to give more details and warrants, as well as give you more time to talk about your impacts. You want to make this like a story. When you're speaking about it, you want it to flow effortlessly. It seems as though the main argument you focus is on is that if we unconditionally let all immigrants in, then some of them could be murderers, terrorists, or even have corona virus. We should have some stipulations such as background checks etc. This to me is your strongest argument. You seem to be making an argument earlier on in the speech about not letting any immigrants in ever? I didn't get a lot of clarification on that argument, but I do feel like it is a bit weaker, as your opponent could pick a lot of holes in it. So if you are going for the "unconditional" takeout argument, you could say something like this: You are going to vote for the opposition this round because I am the only one who can solve for the biggest impacts in the debate: increased terrorism, murder, and spread of coronavirus. Under the proposition's plan they would let any refugees in without stipulations, which means that we have no choice to let people in whether they are murderer's or not. You have to vote opposition in order to prevent these impacts from taking place, prefer the status quo over a world of the proposition. I know it might sound a little ridiculous to speak super confidently like that, and I struggled with that a lot as a debater personally; however, if you sound and speak confidently, the judge will believe you are confident and more likely to vote for you. Personally, I was never super confident that I should win the debate or that I was going to win the debate, but I tried to hide it and not let it show. If you fake the confidence, the judges will believe it.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Seralena Leeson-Schatz

    Reason for Decision:

    I ended up voting for the opposition. The opposition has persuaded me that the proposition's plan of "unconditionally" letting refugees into the country could lead to impacts such as terrorism, murders, disease, and even if there is a even a small risk of that happening then I need to prefer the status quo. The proposition's touches on these arguments, but I need more warrants and explanation to be convinced that none of these are risks at all. Also, I think I could have easily voted for the proposition if I had more impact analysis on your side. The impact to not voting for the proposition is the continued death of many and many refugees at the hands of their own country, and this is important. If you focused more time on that and weighed it against your opponent's impact analysis then I think it would have been an easy proposition ballot. Also, both sides could benefit from incorporating more evidence.

    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: