Judge: jeff roberts (Unaffiliated)
Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 13, 2015 03:14:25PM EST by Bryan Goldfarb
-The State of Prisons by Jason Haslam (Accessed through Project Muse)
Posted at April 14, 2015 04:00:15PM EST by Richard Chen
Pollock, Joycelyn M. 2005. "The Rationale for Imprisonment" http://www.jblearning.com/samples/0763729043/Chapter_01.pdf
Guevara, Saul. "Prisons Should Not Be Abolished" http://thewordlasc.weebly.com/prisons-should-not-be-abolished--saul-guevara.html
Posted at April 15, 2015 10:03:14PM EST by Bryan Goldfarb
Posted at April 17, 2015 01:04:15AM EST by Richard Chen
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 17, 2015 09:48:57AM EST by Bryan Goldfarb
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 18, 2015 12:58:00PM EST by jeff roberts
|Category||Bryan Goldfarb||Richard Chen|
|Use of evidence:||2.8||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.6||3.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.1||3.3|
|Identification of key points:||3||3.4|
|Comments:||Interesting take on the proposition, it seems pretty middle ground and strategic yet I am unsure if this captures the intent of the proposition statement. In your second speech it would be helpful to restate what the definition (along with the source you extended) and spend some more time discussing the intricacies of this interpretation and why it is not only valid but escapes all of your opponents offense. I certainly see you headed in this direction I would just spend more time explaining your advocacy. I would also be weary of using Foucault as your source for a subtle control good argument. Good job responding to some of the specific arguments discussed by the opposition.||Good job organizing your thoughts and relaying them in a clear and concise manner. You might want to consider grouping arguments more thematically opposed to an offense/defense schema. I think this could potentially improve responsiveness and reduce redundancy. One example is the state control/middle level argument. This seems to be discussed sporadically throughout the debate and the direct link to the Foucault argument offered in the first speech is missed. I particularly like the domestic violence/isolation argument and do not think that there was much of an answer by the house side. I also think that the argument about not living up to the actual intent/wording of the proposition statement is strong yet I'm not sure what the impact is coming out of first opposing speech.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Richard Chen
Reason for Decision:
I vote for the opposition. I think the opposition is winning several arguments why long-term isolation solves for the type of rehabilitation discussed in the opening speech. Most compelling in my mind is how physical isolation is necessary for victims of violence/abuse (reporting) and other individuals. When the opposition introduces the double bind argument that the proposition side is either a) not of not living up to the proposition statement or b_) functionally a defense of the status quo, there is a definition extended but very little discussion of hir interpretation or how it functions to solve/overcome the disadvantages to abolishing prisons. Ultimately, Im unsure what a post-prison world looks like which seems to bolster the oppositions arguments in favor of the status quo.