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: Wynnter Millsaps (Bard High School Early College) vs. Opposition: Chiara Pride (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: Sarah Evans (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Wynnter Millsaps
    Wynnter Millsaps
    vs.



    Chiara Pride
    Chiara Pride
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 11:02:58PM EST by Wynnter Millsaps

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2015 08:59:56PM EST by Chiara Pride

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.rightoncrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Controlling-Costs-in-the-Cornhusker-State.pdf

    http://reason.org/files/reason_fltaxwatch_corrections_continuum_of_care.pdf

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-the-moral-and-political-case-for-criminal-justice-reform/2014/11/17/3eedc60c-6e7a-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html

    Posted at April 16, 2015 12:06:23AM EST by Wynnter Millsaps

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/davisinterview.html

    Posted at April 16, 2015 09:42:59PM EST by Chiara Pride

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2015 09:04:53PM EST by Wynnter Millsaps

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 18, 2015 04:07:39PM EST by Sarah Evans

    Category Wynnter Millsaps Chiara Pride
    Use of evidence: 2.5 4
    Delivery skill: 4 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4
    Identification of key points: 4.5 3.5
    Comments: You do a great job of breaking things down in your last speech on exactly what the key arguments are. You reed to do a better job of providing evidence to support your arguments, and also to directly argue against your opponents arguments. Find PPPs bad evidence, find evidence about how breaking down the system is the only way to truly lead to change, etc. You do a great job with evidence, how it helps your arguments, and how it counteracts your opponents arguments. You need to do a better job in your last speech telling me not only why I should vote for you, but why it's bad to vote affirmative.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Wynnter Millsaps

    Reason for Decision:

    I think the biggest issue for me in this round is that there's no explanations of exactly what either side solves for or what the impacts of their claimed advantages/other sides disadvantages are. The negative explains that PPPs would solve all the harms that the aff discusses, but there's no real discussion about how PPPs work or how they solve for punishment, which is really the only framework I've been given to evaluate. The neg tells me how most people aren't violent criminals, don't need punishment, but I'm really unsure how PPPs aren't punishment. I don't want to evaluate the evidence myself, I don't believe that it's fair for me to create arguments for either side, it's your job to do that for me.
    The aff tells me reform is still punishment, and there's no real explanation from the neg on how it isn't. The negative makes an argument initially about how it's non-unique, that prisons are for rehabilitation now, but this argument is never extended. I think that this should've been expanded upon and used to hedge against the punishment argument.
    There also isn't an argument against the aff argument that prisons just teach people how to live in prison and hence the large recidivism rates. The neg tells me how she has evidence about recidivism rates, but I don't get a real explanation of this, or how PPPs solve the issue of people only learning how to live in prison.
    The argument that preventative is better is basically conceded. The aff appears to be the only one who focuses on preventing crimes. I'm not entirely sure how abolishing prisons leads to prevention focus, but there's no argument from the neg against this.
    There also isn't an answer to the aff's argument against PPPs that prisons become normalized when they have such a large role in society. You can't work within the system to change it.
    The round comes down to whether it's better to completely abolish prisons or to set up PPPs. The neg doesn't explain why even the status quo is an option. I'm not entirely sure if abolishing prisons is a good idea, but at the end of the round there are reasons why PPPs aren't the answer, so I'm left having to vote affirmative.
    It's frustrating for me that there was a lot of talk, but no real explanation impact weighing. I hear about economy a lot, but no idea why improving the economy is good, or how that's actually done on either side. The aff in her second speech talks about how PPPs are racist and majority hurts minority, which i think has potential to be a great, and it's never answered, but then it's not extended.


    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