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: Nathan Stouffer (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Jacob Lugo (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: Crystal Hall (West High School)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Nathan Stouffer
    Nathan Stouffer
    vs.



    Jacob Lugo
    Jacob Lugo
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2015 01:54:21AM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    Works Cited

    "America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders." America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders. The November Coalition, 1998. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    Schaie, K. Warner. "Historical Influences on Lives and Aging." Google Books. Springer, 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    Torrey, E. Fuller., Aaron D. Kennard, Don Eslinger, Richard Lamb, and James Pavle. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons than Hospitals a Survey of the States. Arlington, Va: Treatment Advocacy Center, 2010. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States. Treatment Advocacy Center, May 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    Posted at April 15, 2015 02:43:22AM EST by Jacob Lugo

    Citations

    Show

    Prisons NC RD 1
    1OFF
    My opponents use of the word insane to describe inmates that suffer from mental illness is ableism.
    When Your Casual Ableism Stabs Me, I Bleed. Posted on 19 May, 2014 by s.e. smith in disability. http://meloukhia.net/2014/05/when_your_casual_ableism_stabs_me_i_bleed/
    But there are, of course, scores of other words people use casually and without thinking, and among them are various synonyms for mental illness. Crazy, insane, sick, etc. These words are used in a variety of ways; some people, like me, self-identify with them. Others mean them as complements and expressions of awe; that was a crazy stunt, dude! Most commonly, though, I see them used in a derisive fashion, often in a way thats meant to target something a specific person is doing. Crazy congressman tries to ban abortion. An insane man bothered me on the train. The thing is, the thing is, when people say things like this, it bothers me. Not because I am simplistic or reductive enough to think that they are assigning mental health diagnoses to random strangers (though sometimes they are see crazy guy on the train), but because they are stating that they think mental illness is bad. Theyre using mental illness as slang and convenient metaphor for bad thing that I dont like, for person who made me uncomfortable, for incident that was totally bizarre and possibly gross or unpleasant. In this framework, mental illness is a shorthand. Its a shorthand that makes me, as the reader or listener, cringe. And its something I am inundated with constantly. I see it in the headlines of sites I write for, and I grit my teeth every time I see it, knowing that Ive explained how it upsets me and I wish people could learn to use their words instead of writing quick, slangy heds for pageviews. I see it in my inbox constantly, between press releases, listservs, and sometimes my own friends describing people, situations, and things as crazy or insane. I encounter it in casual conversations when Im out in public. Its everywhere, and every time I hear it, its like another little poke. An individual instance of someone saying it isnt something that causes me to fall to the floor in a miserable ball of oversensitive PC twaddle, but it is a little pinprick. And since I encounter dozens and sometimes hundreds of these pinpricks every day, these microaggressions, they start to become raw. They chafe. They irritate me. When more are added on, they find it easier to penetrate that raw, sensitive skin, to get through the layers of the epidermis to the good stuff, and eventually I start bleeding, a slow, oozing trickle that sometimes feels like a flood. Im supposed to be strong and just ignore this kind of thing, some people tell me. Its not that big a deal. Its just a word. Get over it. But its not really possible to do that when this word, this harmless word, is built around making people like me the bad guys, the gross thing, the toilet paper on the bottom of your shoes. And its even harder to do that when I know how this language is weaponised, how it reflects not just cultural attitudes, but policy and beliefs. With every careless use of a mental illness metaphor to describe something you dont like, dominant culture is reinforced just a little bit more. Mental illness is bad. Mental illness is a problem to be fixed. Get rid of the crazy things. Dont take insane people seriously. EXTERMINATE. Youre like Daleks, the lot of you, rolling around judging the world by means of a narrow and simplistic rubric of good and bad; annihilate what you dont like so you can take over the universe. Except that instead of lasers, you have pins that you use to poke endlessly at your stuffed dolls, because thats all we are to you. Were not real people, were things. Or at best, were not like those other crazy people, you know, the insane ones. My stomach gives a little twinge every time I see mental illness used as a casual, simplistic metaphor that everyone is supposed to get. And it twinges again when I see it being used by someone I used to respect, someone I perhaps used to call a friend, perhaps even someone I trusted. For if this is what my friends think of me, I am honestly afraid to know how my enemies conceptualise me and people like me. If I am an object of casual metaphor to my friends, I must be something my enemies really despise.
    Use the ballot to reject ableist rhetoric in every instance.
    Cherney, Wayne State University, James, 2011 [Disabilities Study Quarterly, The Rhetoric of Ableism, Vol. 31 No. 3, http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1665/1606] PESH AK
    If we locate the problem in disability, then the ableist absolves his or her responsibility for discrimination and may not even recognize its presence. If we locate the problem in ableism, then the ableist must question her or his orientation. The critic's task is to make ableism so apparent and irredeemable that one cannot practice it without incurring social castigation. This requires substantial vigilance, for ableist thinking pervades the culture. For example, as I write this, I am tempted to use medical metaphors to explain the task and script something like "we cannot simply excise the tumor of ableism and heal the culture, for it has metastasized and infiltrated every organ of society." Yet this metaphor relies on an ableist perspective that motivates with the fear of death and turns to medical solutions to repair a body in decay. Using it, I would endorse and perpetuate ableist rhetoric, just as I would by using deafness as a metaphor for obstinacy ("Marie was deaf to their pleas for bread") or blindness to convey ignorance ("George turned a blind eye to global warming"). The pervasiveness of these and similar metaphors, like the cultural ubiquity of using images of disabled bodies to inspire pity, suggest the scale of the work ahead, and the ease with which one can resort to using [use] them warns of the need for critical evaluation of one's own rhetoric. Yet the task can be accomplished. Just as feminists have changed Western culture by naming and promoting recognition of sexism, the glass ceiling, and patriarchyadmittedly a work in progress, yet also one that can celebrate remarkable achievementswe can reform ableist culture by using rhetoric to craft awareness and political action.
    Hold them accountable for their speech act. We must question what our discourse justifies. That means offensive discourse comes prior to questions of whos winning the game on the flow.
    Vincent, Christopher (2013), Debate Coach, former college NDT debater Re-Conceptualizing Our Performances: Accountability In Lincoln Douglas Debate http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/10/re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate) PESH AK ~0:29
    embedded white ways of knowing as normative without ever challenging how it replicates oppressive structures. The question then becomes how does our discourse justify what we believe? For many debaters it is the gaming aspect of debate that allows us to assume that our speech can be disconnected from the speech act. The speech can be defined as the arguments that are placed on the flow, and is evaluated in the context of what is the most logical and rational argument to win the round. The critical distinction is the speech act, which is the performance of that discourse. Its not what you say, but what you justify. Understanding the speech act requires critically assessing the ramifications of the debaters discourse. Debate is in and of itself a performance. To claim that it is not is to be divorced from the reality[.] of what we do. We must evaluate what a debaters performance does and justifies. Our performances and our decisions in the round, reflect the beliefs that we hold when we go back to our communities. As a community we must re-conceptualize this distinction the performance by the body and of the body by re-evaluating the role of the speech and the speech act. It is no longer enough for judges to vote off of the flow anymore. Students of color are being held to a higher threshold to better articulate why racism is bad, which is the problem in a space that we deem to be educational. It is here where I shift my focus to a solution. Debaters must be held accountable for the words they say in the round. We should no longer evaluate the speech. Instead we must begin to evaluate the speech act itself. Debaters must be held accountable for more than winning the debate. They must be held accountable for the implications of that speech. As educators and adjudicators in the debate space we also have an ethical obligation to foster an atmosphere of education. It is not enough for judges to offer predispositions suggesting that they do not endorse racist, sexist, homophobic discourse, or justify why they do not hold that belief, and still offer a rational reason why they voted for it. Judges have become complacent in voting on the discourse, if the other debater does not provide a clear enough role of the ballot framing, or does not articulate well enough why the racist discourse should be rejected. Judges must be willing to foster a learning atmosphere by holding debaters accountable for what they say[.] in the round. They must be willing to vote against a debater if they endorse racist discourse. They must be willing to disrupt the process of the flow for the purpose of embracing that teachable moment. The speech must be connected to the speech act. We must view the entire debate as a performance of the body, instead of the argument solely on the flow. Likewise, judges must be held accountable for what they vote for in the debate space. If a judge is comfortable enough to vote for discourse that is racist, sexist, or homophobic, they must also be prepared to defend their actions. We as a community do not live in a vacuum and do not live isolated from the larger society. That means that judges must defend their actions to the debaters, their coaches, and to the other judges in the room if it is a panel. Students of color should not have the burden of articulating why racist discourse must
    NC
    We have to work within the system and reform. Creative ways of working within rules and laws create spaces for new ideas and liberatory action.
    NoubeSe Philip and Saunders 8: M. NoubeSe Philip in an interview done with Patricia Saunders. Prof. Saunders is an associate professor of English at the University of Miami. Her research and scholarship focus largely on the relationship between sexual identity and national identity in Caribbean literature and popular culture. NoubeSe Philip studied law and economics before becoming a Canadian poet, novelist, and essayist. Defending the Dead, Confronting the Archive: A Conversation with M. NourbeSe Philip. small axe 26 June 2008 p 6379 [bracketed to avoid speaking for others]
    NP: I think weve [the black body has] been using the masters tools (to use Audre Lordes powerful metaphor) to dismantle the structures that hold [them] us fast and that what is happening, as I said yesterday, is that we are beginning to fashion new tools to do the work, because the work cannot be done successfully using the masters tools. The masters tools were [they] developed for us out of the masters relationship with us. And, as a result, they always hold within their very form and function the content of our denial, so when I take the legal text and say, alright lets play with this now, lets really play with this, lets see what this text gives up and gives us, it seems to me that that process makes room for somethinganythingelse to happen. It seems to me that what that approach suggests is that I dont trust the archive, that the archive is much more unstable than we originally thought. Its complex because we need language, we need grammar, we need all of those things, but we also need to use them in a different wayto make them ours in a different way. Theres something I think that, as you say, is shared by Saidiyas work and mine. Its as if were moving towards an understanding that theres a built-in limit to how much those tools, including the archive, have helped us to this point. And this limit requires new approaches to engage the task at hand, to tell the stories of our time. While I believe that this projectthese projectsare particular to this time, I feel that we are coming back to the same storythat is [by] trying to tell itselfby untelling; the same questions, but with different resources [and], different understandings, building on those who have posed these questions before.
    Reformation is a prerequisite to revolutionfocus on instantaneous individual action/rhetoric results in wide spread backlash, failed organization, and re-entrenchment of domination.
    Saul ALINSKY, community organizer and writer, 1971 [Rules for Radicals, p. xix-xxiii (Gender Modified Sigalos)]

    As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire 'to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation re-[END PAGE XIX] quires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families-more than seventy million people-whose incomes range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.Our youth are impatient with the preliminaries that are essential to purposeful action. Effective organization is thwarted by the desire for instant and dramatic change, or as I have phrased it elsewhere the demand for revelation rather than revolution. It's the kind of thing we see in play writing; the first act introduces the characters and the plot, in the second act the plot and characters are developed as the play strives to hold the audience's attention. In the final act good and evil have their dramatic confrontation and resolution. The present generation wants to go right into the third act, skipping the first two, in which case there is no play, nothing but confrontation for confrontation's sake-a flare-up and back to darkness. To build a powerful organization takes time. It is tedious, but that's the way the game is played-if you want to play and not just yell, "Kill the umpire."What is the alternative to working "inside" the system? A mess of rhetorical garbage about "Burn the system down!" Yippie yells of "Do it!" or "Do your thing." What else? Bombs? Sniping? Silence when police are killed and screams of "murdering fascist pigs" when others are killed? Attacking and baiting the police? Public suicide? "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun!" is an absurd rallying cry [END PAGE XX] when the other side has all the guns. Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned to what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns! Militant mouthings? Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, which are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear- powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport?Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the "cultural revolution" and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective. We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.Men [and women] don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer [END PAGE XXI] must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives- agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, .if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate."The Revolution was 'effected before the war commenced," John Adams wrote. "The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the peopleThis radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." A revolution without a prior reformation would collapse or become a totalitarian tyranny.A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won't act for change but won't strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution. Those who, for whatever combination of reasons, encourage the opposite of reformation, become the unwitting allies of the far political right. Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the extreme right. It reminds me of the days when Hitler, new on the scene, was excused for his actions by "humanitarians" on the grounds of a paternal rejection and childhood trauma. When there are people who espouse the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy or the Tate murders or the Marin County Courthouse kidnapping and killings or the University of Wisconsin bombing and killing as "revolutionary acts," then we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask. The masses of people recoil with horror and say, "Our way is bad and we were willing to let it change, but certainly not for this murderous madness-no matter [END PAGE XXII] how bad things are now, they are better than that." So they begin to turn back. They regress into acceptance of a coming massive repression in the name of "law and order."

    AC
    FW:
    My opponent says that the negative has the burden to prove that the current system is successful, but rather, the negative only has to prove that the affirmative cant solve and that there are other methods to prison abolishment.
    C1:
    Having criminals go to the military will have no benefits. The current prisoners would have to transfer to the military, causing recidivism. Redding
    Redding, Richard E. Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? (June 2010). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf

    In sum, to date, six large-scale studies have been conducted on the specific deterrent effects of transfer. These studies used large sample sizes (between 494 and 5,476 participants), different methodologies (natural experiment across two jurisdictions, matched groups within the same jurisdictions, or statistical controls), multiple measures of recidivism, and were conducted in five jurisdictions (Florida, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Pennsylvania) having different types of transfer laws (automatic, prosecutorial, or judicial). The strong consistency in results across the studies is all the more compelling given that they used different samples and methodologies, thereby providing a degree of convergent validity for the findings. All of the studies found [that] higher recidivism rates among offenders who had been transferred to criminal court, compared with those who were retained in the juvenile system. This held true even for offenders who only received a sentence of probation from the criminal court. Thus, the extant research provides sound evidence that transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal court does not engender community protection by reducing recidivism. On the contrary, transfer substantially increases recidivism. A recent review of the extant research on transfer conducted by the Centers for Disease Central arrived at the same conclusion (McGowan et al., 2007). Only two apparent exceptions challenge this pattern of findings. For nonviolent property offenders, the effects of transfer remain unclear, with one study finding that transfer had no effect on recidivism (Fagan, 1996) and another finding that transfer decreased recidivism (Winner et al., 1997), but with two studies (conducted in the same jurisdiction as the first two studies) finding that it increased recidivism (Fagan et al., 2003; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005). In addition, with respect to drug offenders, two studies (Fagan, 1996; Fagan et al., 2003) found decreased recidivism rates among those tried in the criminal court.

    C2,C3:
    Things such as asylums and boarding homes still act as prisons, having no benefit to the people sent to them.
    Brown 15 (Lydia Brown, http://www.autistichoya.com/2015/02/no-modern-asylum-call-to-action-in-new-jersey.html)
    But at the end of the day, even the least overtly abusive institution is still an institution. The solution to the problem of thousands upon thousands of us incarcerated in prisons without services is not to build different types of prisons. A therapeutic prison is still a prison. An institution where residents are not sent because they have been convicted of a crime is still a prison. When you live in an institution, you lose the right to control even the smallest aspects of your day to day life. You have no choice over when you wake up or go to sleep. You have no choice over what activities you get to participate in. You are not allowed to leave without written permission and staff following you every step of the way. You are not allowed to decide who is allowed to visit you, when, or for how long. You are not allowed to decide which staff provide you with your services and supports. You are not allowed to decide if you get to work or where you can work. You are not allowed to decide how you will look, what clothes you will wear, what food you will eat, or what your own space will look like. You are not allowed to decide what medications or therapies are right for you, or which are not. You are not allowed to make your own decisions about dating, romance, or sexuality. If you are queer or trans, you will most likely be denied the right to even express who you are. When you are in an institution, you lose all right to any choice. And yes, institutions still exist. They exist under the guise of group homes, and therapeutic boarding schools, and specialized residential facilities, and correctional facilities, and locked psychiatric wards, and nursing homes, and provider-owned and managed farmsteads and ranches, and clusters of group homes, and gated communities, and isolated "campuses." What all of these disingenuous and not so-well-disguised types of institutions have in common is their shared propensity for coercion, abuse, and control of the people living in them.

    Posted at April 16, 2015 12:31:27AM EST by Nathan Stouffer

    Citations

    Show

    Here is a complete copy of my 1AC, sorry that I forgot to post it earlier. (I did not read the whole Speech)

    I strongly affirm the following resolution, This House believes that prisons should be abolished.

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Abolish
    To officially end or stop: to completely do away with

    Prison
    A building where people are kept as punishment for a crime or while they are waiting to go to court

    Recidivism
    Returning to prison after being released

    Incarceration
    Being convicted of a crime and sent to jail

    Framework (This is how the round is going to be judged)

    The affirmative must prove not that the current system doesnt work, but that there are much better alternatives in which we could totally abolish prisons and have a better society.

    The negative side of this debate must prove that the current system is better than all alternatives presented by me, the affirmative.

    Moving on to my arguments.

    Contention 1 - The military solves for nonviolent criminals

    "America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders." America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders. The November Coalition, 1998. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    Entitled America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners, the JPI analysis of recent United States Justice Department data showed that over the past 20 years, the nonviolent prisoner population has increased at a rate much faster than the violent prisoner population, and that 77% of the people entering prisons and jails were sentenced for nonviolent offenses.

    Schaie, K. Warner. "Historical Influences on Lives and Aging." Google Books. Springer, 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    The military provides a quality environment for rehabilitation with a disciplined force and organized unit. According to Mattick in 1960, the state of Illinois tested about 3000 men and put them into the military. The results were amazing! Only 3.4% of criminals violated their parole while on active duty and in a follow up study of eight years after the fact, the rate of recidivism was only 10.5%, compared to the national average of 66.6%.

    This means that criminals will now be participating members of our society, we will be safer because these former criminals will now not be violating the law, and they will be a tiny burden for taxpayers. According to the New York Times, the annual average taxpayer cost is $31,286 per inmate. New York State was the most expensive, with an average cost of $60,000 per prison inmate, whereas it only costs about $10,000 to train a US soldier and put them on onshore, active duty. So now we will be seeing safety benefits from a larger and higher trained military as well.

    Contention 2 - treatment institutions for the mentally different

    Torrey, E. Fuller., Aaron D. Kennard, Don Eslinger, Richard Lamb, and James Pavle. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons than Hospitals a Survey of the States. Arlington, Va: Treatment Advocacy Center, 2010. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States. Treatment Advocacy Center, May 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    According to Torrey et. al. in 2010, In historical perspective, we have returned to the early nineteenth century, when mentally different persons filled our jails and prisons. At that time, a reform movement, sparked by Dorothea Dix, led to a more humane treatment of mentally different persons. For over a hundred years, mentally different individuals were treated in hospitals. We have now returned to the conditions of the 1840s by putting large numbers of mentally different persons back into jails and prisons. Recent studies suggest that at least 16 percent of inmates in jails and prisons have a serious mental difference.

    Given this, prisons to do not solve for the issues of the inmates, what they need are insane treatment institutions where people are dedicated to solving their problems not making them think about what they dont understand in little cell that solves almost nothing.

    Contention 3 - Public service for violent criminals

    So now that weve covered what to do with the majority of prisoners, we now have to look at the remaining 7% of criminals who happen to be intentionally violent.

    I think a clear solution here would to be put them in a boarding house where they receive counseling and help for the issue. They would work in the day as public service agents under the direction of a few armed supervisors to keep them in control. They can stay for however long their sentence is and the whole time they will be contributing to society, building many public services such as parks, roads, and bridges.

    According to The November Coalition, 1998

    The more discipline and actual real life work a person does, the more we see a decrease in crime rates because they will be under real life situations. When a person is confined in a small amount of space in prison or jail, they cant experience real life situations to help their problem. Thats why people who have had a record for non-violent crimes can reduce their sentence with military services.

    Here is the copy of the speech I just made. I said more about the bullet points, so watch the video for that stuff.

    3 minute speech

    Starting with the proposition side of the debate.

    Against my contention 1, my opponent says that recidivism will actually increase when we transfer prisoners to the military. However, he totally misunderstands the point of this card. His evidence is specifically talking about when people are tried in military courts, which is a terrible idea. What my evidence is advocating for is that we use the military as a form of rehab for these inmates. It proved successful in Illinois, and will be successful everywhere else.

    In my opponents attack against my Contentions 2 and 3 he says that, basically if you are kept in a building, you are in prison. However, he fails to refute my specific definition of prison, which is a building where people are kept as punishment for a crime or while they are waiting to go to court. As my system does not advocate for retribution, but rehabilitation. My alternatives are all focused on rehab, making them better than the current system.

    This brings me to the framework issue. As my better alternatives are going to always work better than the status quo, you have to vote affirmative because I am making society better and we should always be doing that.

    Moving on to my opponents speech.

    My opponent starts off his speech by talking about my fault of using words similar to mentally insane and saying that I am an ableist.

    Quote from my opponents speech.

    Not because I am simplistic or reductive enough to think that they are assigning mental health diagnoses to random strangers (though sometimes they are see crazy guy on the train), but because they are stating that they think mental illness is bad.

    What this says is that people are ableist when they think the mental difference is the issue. However, I am saying that these people have done something wrong because the rest of society did not invest enough time into teaching these people not to do bad things. That is what the treatment institutions fixes, teaching these people not to take bad actions.

    As a result of this, my opponents next argument that says that you should reject my side of the ballot because of my ableist views. However, as I proved that I am not an ableist in my last argument, this makes his argument non-unique.

    My opponents next card basically says that you still have to accuse me of being an ableist if I decide to reform my actions and become not ableist. This argument should have no impact on the round because I have already proved that I am not an ableist.

    Judge, in your discretion, if you dont accept my past three arguments as credible; look to my opponents case, my opponent uses the derogatory term mental illness no less than 10 times, if he was following his own advice he would use a less derogatory term such as mentally difference. Based on this, you cant reject my side of the ballot because neither of us provided solvency in our original cases and according to his 3rd card, both of us have to be held accountable for our actions and this cant be reversed.

    Moving on the next section of my opponents case, that we should reform the current system not replace it.

    The issue that you have to look at here is that the fact that the current prison system prioritizes retribution before rehabilitation. This is inherently harmful because the system does not solve the real issue, that they did something wrong. My alternatives solve for that.

    Point of Clarification - If my opponent advocates for helping people fix their actual problems, that will be an affirmative argument. The reason is the definition of a prison, which keeps people somewhere as punishment, without the purpose of rehab. Because the reform my opponent is talking about is actually trying to help these people, which is non-existent in the status quo, it will flow over to my side as a form of abolishing prisons.

    Overview of this speech

    Framework

    My opponent never upholds his framework and I am the only one who upholds mine by saying that my alternatives are better than the current system.

    My alternatives work and are not prisons!!

    Definition of prison
    Military rehab
    Mental difference institutions
    Boarding house for people to serve the community

    What is bad about prisons

    Retribution vs. Rehabilitation

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 17, 2015 11:39:10PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    The decision is for the Proposition: Nathan Stouffer

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition failed to post their closing speech in time, resulting in a forfeit.


    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