- [Announcer 1] Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.

(upbeat music) (attendees chattering) (gong chimes) - I love ringing that gong.

Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to The City Club of Cleveland, where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It's Friday, March 10th, 2023.

My name is Tom Lucchesi.

I'm a partner at the law firm of BakerHostetler.

And on behalf of my firm, our partners, our employees, and associates, I am pleased to introduce the 2023 High School Debate Championship.

It's the final round of competition for the North Coast District of the National Speech and Debate Association.

This event is part of The City Club's continuing commitment to young people in our community.

And at BakerHostetler, we support this wonderful event as a way to celebrate the memory of Patrick Jordan, a partner that I practiced with, seemingly a long time ago, who unfortunately passed away in 1995.

Pat himself was a championship debater, and we sponsor this event in his honor and his memory.

So, with that, let me first introduce the finalists.

Kaitlyn Ernst of Laurel School is one of the finalists.

She is coached by Rachel Rothschild and Rich Kawolics.

The other finalist is Sam Bowen of Hawken School.

Sam is coached by Robert Shurtz and Eva Lamberson.

They will square off in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, which emphasizes logic, ethical values, and philosophy.

This style of debate is named after the famous 19, or 1858 debates between Senate candidates, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

Today's championship will be evaluated by a panel of three judges, seated at the center table here.

Robert Jewell is with Kensington High School.

Ryan Peoples of Berea-Midpark High School.

And the third judge is City Club Board of Director, Harold Anderson, of the East Cleveland City School District.

I'll mention, Harold is a retired colonial, or colonel.

Colonial, yeah.

(attendees laughing) A retired colonel in the US Army.

See, when you read it, it's just hard to do.

A retired colonel from the US Army and a founder of the Thurgood Marshall Oratorical Debate Society.

Welcome, and thank you for your service, sir.

Our on-air commentators today are Mike McIntyre, Executive Director at Ideastream.

And last year's champion, Ella Jewell, of Hawken High School.

Now, I will turn the program over to Ishani Zimmerman of Mentor High School.

Ishani, come on up.

She's a student at Solon High School.

I don't know who wrote this.

(attendees laughing) Ishani, you can explain yourself.

But she's now gonna introduce today's resolution, and we'll explain how this debate works.

So, for some of you who haven't been here, listen carefully, 'cause it's like a chess match.

Ishani?

(attendees clapping) - On behalf of the North Coast District of the National Speech and Debate Association, I want to thank The City Club for hosting the debate today, and the law firm of BakerHostetler for sponsoring it.

This event remains an annual highlight of our debate season, and we are all honored to participate today.

The debate you'll see today is a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, modeled after the great debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

The debate will focus on real-world issues as well as their philosophical impacts.

Each debater will select a value, something which they feel is the most important thing we ought to consider when weighing both sides of a topic or resolution.

Then, each debater will offer a value criterion, a way to measure how we know we have achieved that value.

Finally, each debater will offer contentions, the arguments that connect real-world examples and philosophical positions.

The resolution for today's debate is resolved, justice requires open borders for human migration.

The judges for today's debate are Rob Jewell, debate judge from Kenson High School, Ryan Peoples, debate coach at Berea-Midpark High School, and Harold Anderson, founder of the Thurgood Marshall Oratorical Debate Society.

In today's debate, Sam Bowen of Hawken School will affirm the resolution, and Kaitlyn Ernst of Laurel School will negate.

Good luck to both debaters.

(attendees clapping) - Welcome to the Debate Championships here at The City Club of Cleveland.

I'm Mike McIntyre from my Ideastream Public Media.

And I'm here with Ella Jewell, last year's champion, as we get ready for our debaters to come up to the podium and begin this year's debate.

Are you guys ready?

Not yet.

Ella, I wanna start by saying congratulations to you on your victory last year.

- Thank you so much.

- Are you still on a victory lap?

- I would say that being here is an ultimate privilege, because I not only got to stand on the stage, but I now get to watch two of my very close friends be on the same stage as well.

- I'm really looking forward to it, and I think they're ready now to get started.

So, we'll start with the affirmative.

(mic thuds) - Sorry.

All right.

Is everyone ready?

Great.

(faintly speaks) My time will begin now.

I affirm the resolution.

Resolved, justice requires open borders for human migration.

I'd like to offer one definition.

Human migration is defined by Kumar, '14, as moving from one place to the other with the goal of improving living conditions.

The value is justice, defined as giving each their due.

The value criterion is upholding cosmopolitanism, or the idea that all human beings are members of a single moral community, and therefore we should take global action to reduce the differences and conflicts among states.

Clues explains that mankind and sovereignty would unite interest and create none of the dangerous effects that clashes of national sovereignties do.

All distinctions between individuals are arbitrary, making the human collective the only indivisible and therefore relevant category of sovereignty.

Prefer this value criterion for three reasons.

First, to solve global issues, we have to have a global mindset According to Nussbaum, with cosmopolitanism, we make headway in solving problems that require international cooperation.

We live in a world in which the destinies of nations are closely intertwined with respect to the basic goods and survival itself.

Thus, if nations are able to take different approaches to conflicts, nothing will be solved.

Second, if we failed to operate under a cosmopolitan framework and operate under a nationwide one, it leads to people being dehumanized.

War states that the function of nationalism had degenerated and dehumanized people for the purpose of one government empowering itself over less powerful countries.

And third, if we don't have a global view of morality, it leads towards atrocities.

Eichler finds that cosmopolitan norms mitigate social troubles and harms that tend towards genocidal violence.

Contention one is climate change.

Hicks, '18, writes, rich nations are currently responsible for 70% of historical CO2 emissions, but they are only about 18% of the cost.

Muggah, '22, explains that this will displace billions of people by 2050.

Between 200 million and 1.2 billion people will be forced to flee across their border as withering heat waves and rising seas encroach and disrupt people's lives.

There are two impacts of allowing open a border for the purpose of migration, but it's important to note that in either world, this will happen, insofar as the fact that we are not actually debating a whether or not people will migrate, we are debating whether or not they were allowed into a country once they do.

The first impact is reducing the harm to migrants.

When forced to migrate, many are forced to do so without the permission of the country they're migrating to, resulting in an undocumented status.

This hinders their livelihood as Artiga, '19, writes that 45% of undocumented immigrants were uninsured, compared to about one in four lawfully present migrants.

Undocumented immigrants are often not eligible to enroll in state-funded insurance plans.

Additional fears of retribution, because of undocumented status are causing families to turn away from utilizing programs for their children, many of whom are primarily born in the country where they migrated to and qualify for these programs.

Allowing all people to migrate freely would limit the amount of damage done all to the people who are already suffering because of climate change.

But second is solving for the root cause of climate change.

Currently, many rich countries are the main perpetrators of climate change.

Ray, '19, finds that the richest, most developed countries are overwhelmingly to blame for it with the largest emitters of greenhouse gases being them in total as well as per capita.

This is because large countries like the United States and some countries of Europe as well as India don't face the impacts of climate change and have no incentive to act.

Hickle, '18, rights that developed countries are willing to take the risk, because somebody else bears the cost.

Even when wealthy countries do spend money to stop climate change, they do so in a way that doesn't tackle the root cause.

For example, when Miami Beach faced rising sea waters, they responded by raising street levels and installing pumps.

Meanwhile, in four to four to only 700 miles away, when they didn't have the ability to do that, people were forced to move.

Historically, wealthy countries have always tried to prevent migration.

However, affirming pressures developed countries into taking climate change seriously.

According to Hickle, '18, the solution is simple, open borders.

Once the victims of climate change have the right to seek refuge in wealthy countries, they will start to feel the heat and the damages of climate change, meaning that they would do anything in their power to ensure that people's home regions remain livable, so they can solve these issues.

McKibben writes that to solve climate change, we need wealthy countries to make a more proactive approach.

Furthermore, immigration on net releases less emissions as Ma, '20 states that immigrants have a smaller footprint than the native-born citizen use less energy and use public transportation more.

Contention two is global equality.

Affirming massively decreases global inequality by increasing economic growth in developing countries.

Affirming can best help developing countries improve their economy in three ways.

First is sending money back.

According to Dodwell, '18, open borders are good for the global economy, because they let people move freely.

Many migrants send back to their country of origin, which is positive for that country.

Second is by increasing productivity.

Gaskill, '22 rights that developed countries often have the infrastructure to enable migrants to be more productive and flourish in their workplace, resulting in more wealth being created than if they stayed in their homeland.

But third is creating the global incentive.

Matthews 12 states that in the absence of heavily regulated borders, people would go to wherever work opportunities exist, leading to an efficient matching of workers and jobs.

This increases workers living standards, but additionally by helping countries alleviate an overplus of people or an over surplus of their jobs, it helps everyone.

This leads to enormous economic growth such that the typical developing country worker, which either annual wage more than double with open borders.

Because economic downturn will now spill over into any country, because migrants can migrate to the wealthier country, governments can no longer ignore economic issues of countries abroad.

This creates an incentive to solve the root cause of many of these crises through the global economic policy.

When this happens, there's less of a reason for people to migrate in the first place, which is why Vezzoli, '21, finds that over the long term, open borders actually leads to low and stable rates of migration, because countries have an incentive to solve the root cause of why people migrate.

Altogether, Gaskill, '22 of the University of Anglia conducts an empirical cross-country study and finds that open borders would deliver around $100 trillion to the economy.

Additionally, this goes back to solving climate change.

Porter, '22, writes that climate change is a challenge the world must set outs to tackle.

Robust economic growth in the Global South would speed up technological progress and investment in new energy systems, decarbonizing the world's energy supply.

What's more, economic growth would help poor countries adapt.

Thus, I affirm.

Thank you.

(attendees clapping) - Is everyone ready for cross?

(sneezes) Awesome.

So, let's start on this idea of cosmopolitanism.

So, how do we weigh this when each country has a different idea of justice?

- So, we would say that the overall idea of justice isn't gonna be based on countries, it's gonna be based on the individual.

Is a certain individual achieving their due?

- So, we're just looking to maximize rights then?

- No.

So, we're looking to decrease the differences among states, because if we don't, they will perpetrate the arbitrary domination of people in other countries.

For example, with climate change, because wealthy countries can afford to spend money in a way that alleviates the effect on themselves, but not fix the root cause, they would do that, even though that constitutes harm for other countries.

- So, are you arguing that we should homogenize all cultures then?

- No, this is not about homogenizing cultures, it's just the distribution and conflicts amongst states and reducing that.

That does not mean everyone suddenly has to be part of the same culture.

- Okay, that's fine.

Let's jump down to your first contention in which you talk about climate change.

So, you talk about how a lot of developing countries face things like natural disasters, but won't those still occur in the affirmative world?

- Sure, the natural disasters still occur, but there's two points.

First, at a lesser rate, because when we give the incentive for wealthy countries who have always tried to stop migration and when they can't do that with borders, the only way they can do that is by solving the root cause, meaning they actually care about solving the root cause - Okay.

- of climate change.

- But how do we know we have a guarantee that developed countries will suddenly change their policies and instate all of these new climate change policies?

- Because the best way to determine what a country is going to do is based on past precedent and these countries have always tried to mitigate migration.

The way they do so suddenly shifts from being strict border policies to solving the root cause of that migration.

- Okay, let's look at an example though.

So, when the US experiences a massive influx of refugees from Latin America, does it then go on to support countries like Venezuela?

- Wait, so sorry.

We're cross-applying the worlds here.

The issue with bringing up examples from currently is that we have border restrictions.

When they can use border restrictions to restrict it, they're not gonna support those countries, because there's an easier option.

- Okay.

- When we get rid of that option, that's when we see they solve the root cause.

- Okay.

But that doesn't get at the heart of my question.

My question is if we see a massive pressure on developed nations, do we actually have that past precedent of them going in and helping those countries?

So, obviously, we don't have past precedent, because this is a hypothetical.

We've never seen a world with open borders.

- Okay.

- So, we've never seen them support countries based on it.

When we do see that, we would.

- So, if we have no examples of past precedent, how can we be so sure that it's going to happen in a world with open borders if it's never happened before?

- So, I'm just gonna re-explain the reason why, because the current only way or the current way that they restrict migration is through border restrictions.

When they don't have that option, the only way they could ever restrict migration, which is what they hope to do and what they have always historically done, they turn to solving the root cause.

- Okay, that's fine.

Let's jump down briefly to your second contention in which you talk about remittances.

So, how do we actually ensure that this makes up for the loss of human capital?

- So, a couple things.

First, that remittances will go back into helping train people of the same profession.

If they see an increase in demand, that increases the number of people training.

But additionally, we also see that it goes to help the families.

- Okay, that's time.

- This is the 2023 High School Debate Championship, a 20-year tradition at The City Club of Cleveland, the Citadel of Free Speech.

We're in prep time now and I am here.

I'm Mike McIntyre from Ideastream Public Media with Ella Jewell from Kenston High School.

She was last year's champion.

I've got some questions.

For those of us not familiar with Lincoln-Douglas style debate, what have we just seen and what do we expect for the rest of this in terms of the format of debate.

- What we were just looking at was the affirmative constructive speech, a six-minute speech introducing what Sam, the affirmative side of the debate, is going to stand on for the rest of the round.

We also saw cross-examination, which is a questioning period in which Kaitlyn tried to poke holes in Sam's case.

Cross-examination isn't just for clarifying things that you missed during the speech, it's for building on some offense that you might draw on later in the round.

- And then, further, we'll have a negative constructive, that speech.

So, what else might we expect?

- So, Kaitlyn is going to go next and give her negative constructive, which is what her offense today is gonna be.

But she's also going to give some defense, because the negative, constructive and first rebuttal, is combined into one longer seven-minute speech.

- Let's talk about the prep that goes into this.

This is not something you thought of this morning.

- It is not something they thought of this morning.

No.

They have been preparing for two months, January and February on this topic.

And additionally, they've had several extra weeks to prep leading up to The City Club championship.

- Everything is timed including the prep.

So, when we're talking here, there is time being used for preparation by whom now?

- Kaitlyn is using part of her three minutes of prep time.

And when they use that prep time, they're taking notes, writing offense ideas to continue through the round and writing defense ideas to attack their opponent's point.

- And the topic that we're listening to now, as you mentioned, has been the topic for the last couple of months, but there was a different one before that.

There'll be a different one after it.

How do you change gears?

- It's a little bit difficult to start on a new topic, but the contribution of going to different tournaments is most people's biggest preparation factor.

When you see what other people are talking about, it sparks new ideas in you and guides your future research.

So, when you actually go to competition, it's almost a research-gathering mission.

- It looks like Kaitlyn is ready, so she's gonna be coming to the podium and we're now going to see the negative constructive.

- All right.

As Ella just explained in this speech, I'll be going over the NC and then the AC.

This is a seven-minute speech.

Is everyone ready?

Awesome.

With that, I negate to resolve, justice requires open borders for human migration.

I observe because requires is defined as to necessitate.

The resolution demands the demonstration of an unbreakable link between justice and open borders.

The establishment of any case where that link does not exist is sufficient to negate.

The value is justice, the same as my opponent's.

However, my value criterion is maximizing international societal welfare, which aims to protect the rights of people both within and among societies, as stated in the preamble to the UN charter.

International societal welfare is achieved when there's peace instability among nations and maximal rights within nations.

Contention one, states must maintain authority to impose certain restrictions when necessary.

Subpoint A, pandemics and disease exposure.

Williams, '18, reports open borders rapidly proliferate the global transmission of diseases through increasing global connectivity.

Current restrictions require immigrants to undergo medical screening examinations for infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, polio, measles, and more.

Without screening, diseases can spread and mutate in areas with high immigration.

However, Stain, '22, finds that, for example, COVID testing requirements can cut the risk of an outbreak by 50% and isolating requirements reduce risk of transmission by 35%.

Even more, Kim, '20, found that border closures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced cases by 91.7% on average.

To protect against disease transmission and the wider effects of pandemics such as economic stability and social disruption, states must maintain the ability to restrict immigration to protect the rights and health of citizens.

Subpoint B, political conflict.

The right to secure borders is a fundamental aspect of a nation's sovereignty.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has prompted several Baltic nations to safeguard their borders.

(indistinct) '22, furthers that Russia is an unpredictable and aggressive state, posing threats to the region and world as a whole.

It is unacceptable for people who support and contribute to Russia's aggression to freely enter the lands of victims.

Any country facing political conflict has the right to fortify its borders.

Park, '18, elaborates that the border between North and South Korea serves as a buffer in which neither country can fire weapons, build up a military, or start any act of aggression.

Now, the demilitarized zone is crucial for maintaining the perceived political legitimacy of both nations.

Other examples include the borders between Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

What all of which aimed to prevent further political tensions.

Border restrictions serve as a policy tool to protect citizens and maintain international peace by reducing the risk of territorial disputes and warfare.

Subpoint C, indigenous communities.

The Sentinelese people, an isolated indigenous population in the Bay of Bengal, have consistently refused any interaction with the outside world.

(indistinct) '22, explains that India prohibits all travel to the island in order to protect their sovereignty and the people from diseases to which they've never been exposed.

Schreyer, '18, furthers, efforts to contact the Sentinelese and visit them with lead to their extinction.

Contact means genocide.

Across the world, borders are enforced to keep remote indigenous communities safe by both governments and indigenous communities themselves.

Adam, '18, argues, indigenous peoples may restrict their borders as they are, or at one point, sovereign nations, and therefore have the right and necessity to restrict membership.

The alternative, it's violation.

And often, eradication of indigenous culture.

For these reasons, I negate.

And I'll move on to address Sam's case, starting on that value criterion of cosmopolitanism, 'cause at the end of the day, we're both looking to achieve justice.

However, there's three key reasons as to why you prefer international societal welfare.

The first reason is cultural relativism.

That is each country has a different idea of justice.

They have different ways with which to achieve this.

That's really problematic, because it means we can't weigh between different ideas of justice in my opponent's world.

But the second key reason as to why you prefer international societal welfare, it's because cosmopolitanism inherently requires that we prefer the needs of the community over the individual.

Again, that's problematic when you consider things like human rights, 'cause often, that justifies the oppression of minority groups.

And then, the final reason as to why you prefer international societal welfare is actor specificity.

That is international societal welfare is the calculus which governments actually use.

They don't use cosmopolitanism, which means at the end of the day, we have a clear time weighing today's round under international societal welfare.

But then, let's move into my opponent's first contention, that point about climate change.

So, on this first idea that you reduce harm to immigrants, there's three key responses.

First, the stigma isn't removed in the affirmative world, it just becomes shifted.

That's an example in which he talks about insurance.

We still see the same discrimination happening to people, because they don't have citizenship status.

We still see discrimination in this world.

But the second reason is that we have to have things like border restrictions to ensure that people actually have asylum status.

That's why it's pertinent when you consider climate refugees.

When we have border restrictions, we can make sure people get the protection they need.

But then the final reason is that we already reduced this harm in the affirmative world.

Excuse me, the negative world.

That comes from Guild, '20, explains to you that the Hansen Initiative ensures that climate refugees are granted asylum.

But again, that only happens in a world with border restrictions.

But then, on that second point it gives you in which we talk about solving the root cause.

Again, there's three key responses to this.

First of all is that you see massive harms to developing nations in the affirmative world.

That comes from DeCosta, '22, who explains that open borders result in the loss of critical development funds from low income economies.

They lose their human capital and that's problematic as Siegel, '16, finds the various poorest people in the world can't migrate, because they simply can't afford to.

What that means is you're stripping developing countries of their resources, and then they can go on and do things like help natural disasters.

And moreover, Curs, '12, finds that open borders don't provide oppressed people with long-term solutions.

Rather, they allow developed nations to remain complacent while claiming to help while letting this problem worsen in developing nations.

But then finally, you can turn this point, because that's Benevis, '20, explaining to you that people have a greater carbon footprint in developed nations, which means we see more immediate harms towards climate change.

But then, let's move on to the second intention in which he talks about economic harms.

So, remember when I just told you that you harm the very poorest people in the affirmative world, because you take away their resources and you put them in developed countries instead.

But then, you also cause harm to host countries.

That's Kollsman, '22, who looks at the Schengen Area, the area of the UK with open borders, and found that we saw a decrease in annual earnings of vulnerable workers, which was persistent even 10 years later.

Smith, '15, corroborates that, finding the most citizens see a fall of employment and labor earnings.

So, you're not helping the very poorest people and you're harming citizens of nations, be so at that point, you're not helping the economy.

And I'm ready for cross once we all are.

(attendees laughing and clapping) - All right.

Is everyone ready?

- [Attendees] Yes.

- Great.

Okay.

Time will begin now.

Can you tell me exactly what resources we are taking away from the least well-off in developing countries?

- Yeah, so the idea here is you see a massive loss of human capital.

- Okay.

- You see less people working, you see less taxes.

You see well, less people there.

- Okay, wait.

So, is there not like any single situation in which more people has actually detrimental to the place of origin?

- Right.

So, the problem here is when you do a massive influx of people out of developing nations and moving to developed nations, that's where we see the problem arise.

- Oh, wait, okay.

Sorry.

Do you have any piece of evidence that tells you that currently, these developing nations are facing a person like a capital of populace rather than a crisis of jobs and the market?

- Right.

So, that's not really my argument here.

My argument is in a world with open borders, which is not the current world, that's where you see - Wait.

- the mass exodus of people.

- So, my question is if you don't prove that they currently need a large populace or they're currently on a crisis of populace, how do you prove that it will actually have any impact?

- Yeah, so I think it's pretty simple to assume that if you take away things like taxes or resources from a country, it's going to be less able to implement further policies.

- Okay, wait, so it's the human capital of providing that taxes, right?

- Sure.

- So, if we get increased taxes in another way, say the populace becomes more wealthy, we would say that I would counteract the actual movement of the people away from that area, correct?

- Yeah, but insofar, things like remittances can't make up for the loss of human capital.

We don't see that occurring.

- Okay.

Sorry.

Great.

Now, let's talk about your value criterion.

So, this is just basically talking about the individual rights of people globally, right?

- Well, no, so I give you that two criteria under my value criterion.

So, number one is maximizing rights, which you just mentioned, but it's also doing things like maintaining peace instability among nations.

- Okay, sorry.

So, my value criterion in the surround was reducing the conflicts and differences among states.

Differences in this case would be around rights.

Our value criterion is not incredibly similar.

- Yeah.

So, if you wanna talk about cosmopolitanism entails maximizing rights and maintaining stability, sure, they're pretty similar.

- Okay.

That's generally what it's defined as.

So, can we agree that in this round, we're gonna be looking to generally the same concepts of helping the least well-off in other countries as well as like maximizing peace?

- Sure, if you wanna say that's the definition of cosmopolitanism.

- That was generally what is outlined.

Okay, great.

So, when we're talking about your case, specifically on the point about indigenous people, how many of these communities currently are recognized as international states?

- Right.

So, the example I gave you specifically within that third subpoint looks at the North Sentinel Island, which is a subset of India.

- Right.

So, that doesn't have sovereign borders.

It's not a country.

So, it's not applied when we're talking about borders in the traditional sense.

- No.

- How many of these communities are still protected by nationally recognized borders?

- Yeah.

So, the argument here is it's part of India's border.

For example, if you close down like the Texas border, I'd struggle to say the US has open borders.

It's the same thing when you look at the North Sentinel Island in India.

- Okay, that's about as much time as crossed.

This will be continued to our next speech.

Thank you.

- We have been listening to the affirmative cross-examination in the 2023 High School Debate Championship.

Some prep time now.

I'm Mike McIntyre from Ideastream Public Media.

I'm here with Ella Jewell, she's a champion from last year from Kenston High School.

And Ella, when you hear citations, references.

Williams, '22, in the middle of a debate like that, what are these debaters referring to?

- They're referring to pieces of evidence or sources which we call cards.

So, we, for the purpose of shortness, so we have as much time to make as many arguments as possible, we'll just cite the author of a study's name and the year it was published.

For example, they used Williams, '05.

That means that it was written by an author with the last name Williams and published in the year 2005.

- I know why you call them cards, 'cause I was a debater in policy debate 40 something years ago.

They were literally cards.

- Well, now, some people use those still.

I did in the beginning of my career, but they often find it easier to make one long document on their computer.

And I see that's what Sam's reading off of today.

- And also back then, there weren't computers (attendees laughing) or the internet.

(attendee coughing) Let me ask you about the judges.

I noticed the last name of one of them.

It's Jewell.

So, related to you, I'm supposing.

- Yes, that's my father.

- So, we have three judges that are here today and wanna give them credit to Rob Jewell of Kenston.

Ryan Peoples, he is with Berea-Midpark.

And Harold Anderson, the East Cleveland School Board.

Are you looking at the judges and trying to impress them as a debater?

Or are you just trying to win a philosophical argument against your opponent?

Where's your focus?

- So, my personal focus is a mix between the two.

I often have to read a lot of material which cuts down on say, eye contact or rhetorical gestures.

But at the end of the day, it is good to try to make at least some connection with your judge to show that you are paying attention to who is listening to you and trying to connect with them.

- I'm hearing a lot of substance here, but when you think about trial attorneys, for example, a different kind of argument, there's a lot of style as well as substance.

Does style matter here?

- Well, personally, in The City Club debate, I would say that as it's an introduction to debate for the wider community, style would matter.

But when it comes down to having a debate coach as a judge, we throw style out the window and look more on substance.

It's more of a chess match than say, a fencing match.

- Could that be why last year when I listened to you, I thought it was on one and a half speed?

- Perhaps.

Yes.

- So, the idea is to get the evidence in there, to get the argument in there.

- The idea is to have as many arguments as possible, so your opponent can't refute all of them.

And then, you can bring up the ones that stand irrefuted throughout the round as key voting issues.

- We're about to see a round of rebuttal.

What's the difference between rebuttal?

Well, let's hold that thought, but I'll ask you later, the difference between rebuttal and cross-examination.

Sam Bowen is ready for his rebuttal.

- Sorry.

All right.

This speech is four minutes long and will begin on the negative case, and then move on to the affirmative.

Are my judges ready?

Great.

Or is my opponent ready?

Great.

In that case, my time will begin now.

Let's talk about my opponent's case.

First off, an overview response to their entire thing.

They tell you that we need restrictions in certain instances.

The issue is this leads to prolonged issues.

Marsum, '16, writes that when you have any restriction, that gets manipulated and changed by the country that has implemented it, meaning that the original purpose of that restriction will change over time into something that can cause many effects.

That's really important, because none of the restrictions my opponents talks about are immune from this manipulation.

Now, let's go into the point by point.

First on my opponent's point about pandemics, a few responses here.

First, Hoffman, '20, writes that closed borders did not help in many instances of pandemic, giving the examples of the AIDS virus, swine flu, and the SARS virus.

But second and more importantly is the UN, '21, finds that overall, these migration camps where people are held while being screened for these diseases cause further spread of the diseases, because you have a highly concentrated populace, but you know some of which are infected.

That creates further pandemics.

But secondly or thirdly, recognize that (indistinct) '18 writes very clearly that when you don't give migrants access to healthcare, which you don't do if they aren't legally recognized, then you make it worse, because people need access to healthcare in order to get vaccinated.

That's why they found that even when you restricted borders by 98%, we saw no influx or help in actually stopping a pandemic.

Now, let's go into my opponent's second point about conflict.

One big response here.

The definition of human migration is very clear.

This is only for the purpose of seeking for an individual better life.

That means if you're trying to harm another country, that is not definitionally human migration.

It's a form of warfare.

But second, recognize my opponent brings up the issue of South and North Korea.

Recognize that that border is incredibly detrimental to everyone who is currently stuck in North Korea.

When we have open borders, we allow for people to escape these damaging countries that actually cause all these harms.

The important part of the North and South Korean border is not the issue of human migration, it's the border of the non-violent zone.

We can still have non-violent zones without having borders that prevent human migration.

My opponent doesn't prove that.

But then, on my opponent's third point about indigenous people, first, most of these communities aren't recognized by their country of origin.

In case of India, that one instance is A, not a nationally recognized border, so you can still have laws that prevent internal movement.

For example, someone can still be under arrest and be in prison, they aren't allowed to move.

That doesn't mean we don't have open borders.

That means that the vast majority of these cases won't be helped, because they're not actually national borders.

But then, third or second, recognize that Kumar, '14, writes very clearly that it's actually much better for indigenous people to have open migration, because many of them are displaced for their original cultural lands.

That means they can't practice their cultural practices until they go back.

Many of these are divided by border.

When you get rid of the border, you allow people to practice where they originally were on their original land.

Now, let's go onto my case.

Me and my opponent will agree that our value and value criterion are largely the same.

So, now let's go into my case.

On my first contention, my opponent gives you a lot of responses.

First, my opponent says that the stigma is still there.

But the difference is currently undocumented citizens are literally not allowed to have healthcare.

That's really important, 'cause the stigma is not the thing we are solving.

We are solving the laws and regulations that stop them.

But second, my opponent says that they can't grant asylum-seeking status.

There's no reason why we can't grant asylum-seeking status while still having open borders.

When we have open borders, everyone who is allowed in gets the access to the benefits of being an asylum.

Asylum is just a way to keep the people out, not a way to help the people who are currently in.

Then, on my second impact, my opponent just talks about brain drain, which we'll get into in the next case or on next contention.

But then, my opponent says this is not a long-term solution.

It very clearly is, 'cause it's the only way to solve the root cause.

Then, on my opponent's, on my second contention, my opponent just brings this idea up of reducing the materials.

(indistinct) drops my first, second, and third point about how we increase the money of the people there.

Remember, Mercer finds that we see their annual wedges double.

It doesn't matter that there's less people there, because the people there are producing more money, meaning it can contribute more in taxes.

The actual populace isn't important.

Then, my opponent says that the Schengen zones saw a decrease in the economy, but the Schengen was very clearly going through multiple other recessions at the time and wasn't complete open borders.

This isn't a reason to affirm or negate.

Thank you.

(attendees clapping) - I think Kaitlyn's gonna take a little bit of time here.

We're at the High School Debate Championships.

Sam Bowen of Hawkins School and Kaitlyn Ernst of Laurel School.

I mentioned it's a rebuttal, the affirmative rebuttal we just heard, but it's not over.

So, the way that works is it's split.

Can you tell me a little bit about that?

- So, the affirmative has two rebuttals technically in these debates.

They have the first affirmative rebuttal, which we just saw from Sam Bowen.

That's purely on the cases that were presented earlier in the debate.

We have him rebutting what Kaitlyn just said saying, oh, that's not true.

Oh, this would actually be harmful, et cetera.

And then, he also addresses his own case, the points that Kaitlyn failed to address in her earlier speech.

So, when we have that rebuttal going on, we have more of the content being brought through the debate.

But the second rebuttal is going to be Sam's key voting issues, which are the biggest points that he wins on this side of the debate.

Whether it's going to be his climate change point or the economic and equality point that we're gonna be seeing, I don't know just yet, but he will boil that down to why it's important for him to win on those specific issues.

So, we'll have a negative rebuttal next that goes six minutes.

And then, that final point that you talked about, the affirmative rebuttal is three minutes, and then we're done.

- Yes.

So, Kaitlyn will also combine a similar style of rebuttal to what Sam just gave, and then also at the end, give her key voting points as well.

- When you're finished, do you know?

- When you're- - Before the judges vote, do you know that you've won or lost or is it often it could go either way?

- Well, that depends on who you're against, what you've said in the round, and who the judge is.

Sometimes the judge makes a decision that you completely disagree with and you thought you won, but you actually lost, or vice versa.

And it's a little lucky win.

We just don't always get to know, because we can't read the judge's mind and we can't read our opponent's.

- How do you deal with the nerves?

- Well, I think that depends on every debater.

Some of us have hype up playlists that we listen to to shake off the extra energy.

Others of us enjoy in relaxing activities between rounds such as reading or doing some homework, things like that.

- Looks like Kaitlyn is getting ready to deliver her negative rebuttal.

It'll be six minutes and I think she'll probably explain that to us.

Kaitlyn?

- All right.

In this speech, I'll be going over the negative case, the affirmative case, and then ending with some key voting issues.

Is everyone ready?

Awesome.

With that, at the end of the day, if you believe you have a right to lock your door at night, you're going to be voting negative in today's round.

This highlights the fatal flaw within my opponent's argument, which of that you take him at the highest ground, he's failed to address the nuance of my argument that it's not necessarily one restriction it's good, but rather the rights and the ability to implement these restrictions are a rights that must be afforded to nations.

So, with that in mind, let's move into the overview that my opponent provides, that these restrictions and inevitably lead to manipulation.

But I'm not defending that manipulation in today's round.

I'm talking specifically about the right and specifically about those restrictions.

If you wanna talk about manipulation, it can happen on either side of today's debate.

But then, let's move into the first contention I provide to you about pandemics and disease exposure.

My opponent reads a couple of pieces of evidence telling you it didn't help.

But the problem here is all of the issues he talks about are issues with implementation.

There are not issues with specific policies.

It gives this example about migration camps, but those are problems with poorly run camps.

It's not necessarily saying that all migration restrictions are unjust.

At the end of the day here though, we have conflicting evidence.

Here's why you can prefer mine, because I give you that Williams, '18, card, which looks specifically at diseases other than COVID, things like malaria, things like tuberculosis.

And the fact that majority of American citizens are not vaccinated against tuberculosis is simply because we have border restrictions, 'cause we're able to safeguard nation.

This isn't speculative evidence that my opponent finds, but it's rather something that has already occurred.

But then, let's move into the second point I give you in which I talk about political conflict.

So, my opponent tells you this isn't an instance of human migration.

So, to that, let's look at an example to the Russian Ukraine example I provide within my constructive.

When Crimea was annexed by Russian citizens, it was made by people who were under the guise that they were human migrants.

They were unidentified soldiers who then went and held a referendum in Crimea that ultimately justified the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That's really problematic, because if we actually had restrictions on the border that allowed us to determine who was a migrant and who was not, we would be able to prevent that referendum from occurring and ultimately prevent the justification for the Russian Invasion Act of Ukraine.

At the end of the day here, look to the specific evidence I give you about Russia and Ukraine, that a world with open borders is one in which we cannot safeguard nations and that fundamentally strips nations of their basic rights.

But then, on the example I give you about North and South Korea, they tell you that the DMZ isn't a good and we still see injustices.

That's again, instances with implementation.

But he's not actually answering the nuance of my argument.

That is the ability to have a border between North and South Korea is what allows each nation to have political legitimacy.

If we remove those borders, if we remove any restrictions that allows nations to actually maintain that sovereignty, we ruin any semblance of political legitimacy in the affirmative world, which in the long run is going to be way worse.

But then, on the third point I give you about indigenous communities, it tells you most of them aren't recognized.

But again, look to the example I give you about the North Sentinel Island, that is a part of India.

If you're closing down part of India's border, that's still going to be recognized as an international border closure.

So, because of that, you can flow through the example I give you about the North Sentinel Island.

But then, he tells you that just because they're... Again, they're not necessarily recognized.

But look to the example I give you with Adams, '18, another nuance that's not answered by my opponent.

That tells you because indigenous tribes were at one point are still are sovereign nations, they have the right to restrict membership.

We only afford that right in the negative world.

But then, finally, he tells you what's much better in the affirmative world, because of displaced indigenous populations.

But again, look to the Adam, '18, analysis that tells you we allow indigenous communities to actually implement these regulations themselves, which allows indigenous people in, but it also allows 'em to safeguard their communities.

But then, let's move on to the affirmative side, the flow, starting in that first contention in which they talk about climate change.

So, a really important point of today's debate is the observation I provide at the beginning of my constructive that goes unanswered by my opponent.

That tells you that the affirmative has to demonstrate an unbreakable link in between justice and open borders.

What that means, if I can show you that we can solve climate change or mitigate its impacts on my side of today's debate, then it's not a reason to affirm.

That's going to be important, 'cause I give you the example of the Hansen Initiative, which tells you that we're able to grant climate refugees asylum status when we have border policies, which means we're better able to help these migrants in my world, because of this initiative.

Mitigating the effects of climate change, again, are not unique to the affirmative.

But then, on the specific example in which they talk about stigma, realize the problem in which we talk about healthcare access is we only afford those rights to citizens.

Just because we have open border policies doesn't mean all people are then considered citizens.

But then, on the points in which he talks about solving root cause, let me reiterate a couple of points that my opponent insufficiently covers.

The first point is that I tell you that immigrants have a larger carbon footprint when they move to develop nations.

That's important cause we're seeing more immediate effects to climate change.

I think that's almost already irreversible.

But then, again, he has very little guarantee that any of these policies will actually happen.

That's important considering the analysis I give to you.

That was he a massive exodus of human capital from developing countries into developed countries.

That's because you're taking away people, you're taking away their jobs, you're taking away the taxes they provide and you're instead moving that to developed nations.

That's important when you consider his second contention in which he talks about global inequality, again you are harming the very poorest people in the affirmative world.

So, with that in mind, let's move into my key voting issues of today's round.

Number one, do governments have the right to implement restrictions?

That's what I tell you on what directly links into international societal welfare.

And then, number two, are these restrictions just?

I give you four key examples, pandemics, economic impacts, political conflict, and indigenous groups.

For those reasons, you can comfortably vote negative.

(attendees clapping) - We'll be having a final affirmative rebuttal in a feW minutes when Sam is done with his preparation.

I wanted to talk a little bit about all the parents here in the room and and are there every Saturday at your events.

They've gotta get up early in the morning, bring you guys to your events and many of them end up judging, because the schools have to bring judges with them.

Coaches as well.

And shout out specifically to Rachel Rothschild and Rich Kawolics of Laurel who are here coaching Kaitlyn.

As well as Robert Shurtz (attendees clapping) and Eva Lamberson who are the coaches at Hawkin.

(attendees clapping) Let me ask you, Ella, who are your coaches at Laurel and can you just tell me about the importance of the coach-debater relationship?

- Well, now I don't go to Laurel, however- - I'm Sorry.

I'm sorry.

(Ella chuckles) Kenston.

I knew that was gonna happen at some point today.

- It's fine.

It's been happening all the time.

But I would say that my coach, Voudris, has definitely shaped me into the debater I am.

When you go to practice, you're not just getting a general lecture like a class.

You're getting oftentimes one-on-one or two on two feedback with coaches and the other people in your debate event, and they are able to teach you what you're doing right and also what you're doing wrong.

- And now, tell me about the coaches at Laurel.

I'm just kidding, sorry.

(attendee laughing) And Sam Bowen is ready for the final rebuttal.

- All right.

So, this is the final speech of the round.

It serves to clarify a few points and then give the main points that I believe the affirmative is winning.

Are my judges ready?

Great.

Is my opponent?

Sounds good.

In that case, I'm gonna start with clarifications, then move on to the key voting issues.

Time will begin now.

Let's talk about a few clarifications that I need to make about my opponent's case.

First, when we're talking about the border between North and South Korea, the part of that border that's important is the military border.

If that border can restrict or allow for human migration is irrelevant, because the people in North Korea need to leave.

But secondly, recognize when my opponent is giving the Russian Crimea example that every single example she gives was in a world with border restrictions.

When we have open borders, there's literally no impact here, because it's happening right now.

Make my opponent prove that there will ever be any solvency.

But second, recognize that before we can solve pandemics, we need to make sure that migrants have access to healthcare.

This is my first impact, my first contention that my opponent doesn't address.

When we're talking about solving pandemics, the most important thing is giving people access to care, which you don't do if you make them stop at the border.

Additionally, my opponent doesn't respond to the turn about migration being bad because of these centers.

My opponent just says not every center is bad, but because some are, that's a reason to affirm.

And then, third, recognize that you still need open borders, because of the manipulation.

My opponent tells you that the right can't be manipulated.

It's certain instances can.

I would say the right to have migration leads to manipulation, because that leads to certain restrictions being changed of unevolved over time, meaning that we can't determine any one restriction will ever change.

At that point, my opponent doesn't actually only say that we have the current, their restrictions they're talking about, but every restriction everywhere.

Now, let's go on to the key voting issues in today round, the first of which will be climate change.

The affirmatives argument is very clear.

We have always seen wealthy countries try to stop migration.

Currently, they do that when border control.

When they don't have access to border control, they have to solve the root issue.

The root issue in this case, climate change.

Remember, I give you the Starling card that tells you very clearly that wealthy countries that need to commit more to climate change, if we're going to solve it.

At that point, we need to solve it via wealthy countries being pressured with open borders.

That's the only solvency in today's round.

That's going to be a really big impact.

This is the biggest impact in today's round, because nothing else will impact as many people or as many countries as climate change.

But then, second, recognize that we help the people who are currently migrating get access to help.

This goes unresponded to my opponent, saying that currently, asylum-seekers get access.

But remember, the asylum-seeking program currently is manipulated, and so not everyone who is seeking the status gets it.

That's really important, 'cause it's not a reason to vote for my opponent.

But then, the second key voting issue will be the economy.

My opponent tries to cross-apply their point of the economy throughout this entire round.

Seeing that the human capital leaving will offset.

The issue is current or if when we have open borders, they can send money back.

They will be more efficient and they work where the demand is.

When they work where their demand is, we see a one-to-one matching.

And because of the spillover of any economic crisis, countries now care about the global incentive.

When they care about the global incentive, they overall solve to solve for the root cause of climate change, which would in this case, be the economy.

When that happens, we see a lower stable rate of migration in the long term, meaning every impact my opponent talks about, you can vote for me under.

But then, second, realize that I cross-applied empirical cross-country study, finds that a hundred trillion dollars will go into the economy with open borders.

That is very clear impact that no matter what my opponent tells you, we will see an economic improvement.

Thank you.

(attendees clapping) - We have just heard the final argument and rebuttal in the High School Debate Championship 2023.

Dan Mulford will be coming up to the stand in just a moment as our judges are tabulating now and making their decisions.

Ella, one last thought from you at this point in the debate?

This is that moment when you're waiting for the decision.

How did that feel last year?

- It was one of the top 10 most nerve-wracking moments of my life.

So, my heart goes out to both competitors on this stage, but I wanna say that you both have done a fantastic job and as your friend, I'm so, so proud of both of you.

- You guys are awesome.

(attendee clapping) And that is future Baker partners, Sam Bowen and Kaitlyn Ernst.

And, Dan Moulthrop, (attendees clapping) CEO of The City Club, take it away.

- Thank you very much, Mike.

Again, a round of applause for our debaters please.

(attendees clapping) I hope you both are feeling all of the love that there is for both of you in this room.

Most of you, I think, don't know, I don't know, believe it was mentioned, there's a coin toss beforehand and Kaitlyn won the coin toss and chose to negate.

And, Kaitlyn, I wonder if you could tell everybody why you made that decision, 'cause it wasn't an easy, it wasn't a split second decision for you.

- Yeah, for me in debate, I've always had a problem with... Oh, sorry.

(laughs) - I'll hold it.

- I've always had a problem with speaking really quickly.

And so, the negative has the advantage of longer speaking times.

So, seven minutes and six minutes.

So, I knew that would allow me to slow down a bit.

(chuckles) - Really.

And so, it was purely tactical in that way.

It wasn't that you had a stronger feeling about the negative position?

- I mean, you saw how long it took me to decide, (chuckles) so.

Yeah.

(clears throat) - Interesting.

Sam, in arguing the affirmative, I mean, you've done this before, you've debated this topic before.

Do you prefer the affirmative or were you disappointed?

- So, I generally prefer the negative.

However, in this round, as you can probably hear, I'm having little issues with my voice.

So, having the more frequent breaks to drink water was actually very helpful.

In this topic specifically, I think it is a little overall one-sided, but I do believe that the affirmative generally has the evidence that I agree with the most.

And so, that's good for me in this sense.

But I do also enjoy the longer speaking times of the negative.

- I seemed as if you were passionate, like you were speaking from the heart at times.

And you did say that you feel that the evidence lines up with your point of view.

- Yeah.

Sorry, yes.

(attendees laughing) Generally, I think there are nuances that I believe that can't be held true in a one-sided debate, but generally, yeah, I believe in the evidence I'm talking about and the whole, the things that I talk about true.

- Okay.

We're gonna...

I think, are we ready?

Oh, we're waiting on the judges still.

Okay.

Tom Lucchesi, could you join, join us up in this general area to help when we're actually ready.

I wanna ask both of you, have you ever served as a judge, like in a practice round with your teammates or with others?

- I have actually, and I judged novices before, and it's definitely a diff, excuse me, difficult role.

- What makes it so hard?

- I think maybe you saw it a little bit in today's debate, but sometimes we talk about different things and there's valid points to each side.

So, it's determining like which valid point to go with.

- And how do you decide?

How do you determine which valid point is more valid?

- Man, (laughs) (attendees laughing) if only I knew.

(laughs) So, you saw it a little bit in today's debate, where we'll try to outweigh each other's arguments, so it will affect more people or the effects will be worse.

So, you'll try to have some strategy within that.

- Sam, I assume you've judged it a little bit in your day.

- Yeah, yeah.

So, I've judged my teammates.

I've also judged at novice tournaments and just like talk about what I think that is, I think in every round that I've ever seen, I can think of reasons to vote for either debater.

And so, it comes down to which of those debaters highlighted those reasons and compared them to each other.

And that's a little bit of the Wang that Kaitlyn was talking about, as well as just who has the easier path to ballot.

'Cause I honestly think in every round, there are reasons to vote for both debaters.

- What were the other topics you both debated this year?

- So, the topics that we just debated at the state's tournament was about if the Supreme Courts justices should be term limited.

And then, before that, we were debating whether or not the People's Republic of China should focus on environmental or economic policies.

- Huh.

Huh.

Very interesting.

(attendees laughing) I feel like forums, I'm just running through forum ideas now.

Thank you very much.

Ella's guy.

Go back to you for a second, Mike.

- Ella, I wanted to ask you with the same question.

In general, do you prefer the affirmative or the negative or does it depend debate to debate?

- So, it does depend topic to topic, but overall, I prefer the negative like Kaitlyn, because I prefer the longer blocks of speaking time where I have more freedom and flexibility to put in a key voting issue for longer if I want to or focus more on some rebuttal for an extended period of time.

- Do you ever get a debate topic where you just say, yes, this is exactly what I wanna talk about?

Like whether it be open borders or Supreme Court term limits or whatever it might be?

- So, I was actually quite excited about the China topic, because I've researched a lot about China's policies, because I'm studying Mandarin right now.

So, I would say that if it has a link to your personal interest, then it's going to be a personal favorite.

- And if you personally feel more toward the affirmative and have to argue the negative, it doesn't matter?

- So, like Sam, I try to find evidence that I can really believe in.

So, even if I don't believe in the entirety of the side that I'm on, I can at least believe in the points that I'm making.

- Very interesting.

Ella, thank you.

Mike, thank you very much as well.

We're getting very close.

I'm sorry to prolong this anxiety for all of you.

It's just another minute or two before we, while the judges' decisions are tabulated and the prizes are prepared.

Tom Lucchesi, BakerHostetle, ladies and gentlemen.

(attendees clapping) Yeah, go ahead.

Right up.

- Well, we have a winner.

I've never seen the judges write so long or take so long.

It was a close competition.

And today's winner is Sam Bowen.

(attendees cheers and claps) - Congratulations.

(group chattering) - This is definitely the kind of debate where second place is pretty cool too.

Congratulations, Kaitlyn Ernst.

Congratulations, Sam Bowen.

Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a wonderful City Club Forum and our forum is now adjourned.

(attendees clapping) (gong chimes) (attendees clapping) - [Announcer 2] For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club, go to cityclub.org.

(bright music) - [Announcer 1] Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.