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: Samuel Owens (Winston Churchill High School) vs. Opposition: Miki Kawana (Shorin Global)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Samuel Owens
    Samuel Owens
    vs.



    Miki Kawana
    Miki Kawana
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2015 12:00:16AM EST by Samuel Owens

    Citations

    Show

    Gilligan, James. "Punishment Fails. Rehabilitation Works." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Froomfordebate%2F2012%2F12%2F18%2Fprison-could-be-productive%2Fpunishment-fails-rehabilitation-works>.

    Posted at April 21, 2015 11:47:09PM EST by Miki Kawana

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2015 03:19:35AM EST by Samuel Owens

    Citations

    Show

    Cullen, Francis T. "Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism." Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism. The Prison Journal, 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

    Gilligan, James. "Punishment Fails. Rehabilitation Works." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Froomfordebate%2F2012%2F12%2F18%2Fprison-could-be-productive%2Fpunishment-fails-rehabilitation-works>.

    Weschler, Joanna. Prison Conditions in Japan. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 1995. Human Rights Watch, Asia. Human Rights Watch. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

    Posted at April 24, 2015 09:40:42AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2015 02:33:36AM EST by Samuel Owens

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 27, 2015 12:44:13PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Samuel Owens Miki Kawana
    Use of evidence: 3.5 3
    Delivery skill: 4 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 3.2
    Identification of key points: 2.7 3.6
    Comments: Clever interpretation of the resolution. However, I'm not a huge fan of it since it gets around debating a lot of the topic. This is especially true at the point you say it's impossible for your opponent to answer. I like that at least half way through you start debating the actual topic though. You could do more in the citation box in backing up the facts when you get into making arguments about prisons.

    Good job extending your argument. I like that you at least don't spend much time on this house as your house. But at the point it's dropped you should definitely extend it. Good job at responding to the education and health care claims by the opposition. You could be clearer on what you mean by "anti-prisons."
    As much as I don't like his argument that "This House" means "his house" you do need to answer that argument. You also need to do better at answering the proposition's argument than just saying he didn't provide clear numbers. You should provide numbers that back up your side. Also, you should use the cite box to provide citations for your arguments. You do good on explaining why prisons are good. However, you should also run a counter-plan to improve prisons.

    You really need to provide citations for the evidence you're referencing so your opponent and judge can look at them. Also, you need to directly respond to your opponents argument concerning "anti-prisons" since it isn't a just let people go free system. Although it's not clear exactly what it is. It is clear that it isn't just let criminals walk the streets but involves some sort of educational initiative.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Miki Kawana

    Reason for Decision:

    I appreciate you forfeiting the round due to the video being private. Most of my comments about the round are in the individual comments section. Overall I thought the prop provided more evidence on the problems with prisons while presenting an alternative. I would have liked to see that alternative more developed. At the same time, I think the opposition needed to do better responding to the nuances the proposition was making. However, since the video was private I understand why that couldn't be the case.


    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