Judge: Guy Risko (Bard High School Early College)
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 09:09:47PM EST by Ryan Tarasoff
The British Journal of Criminology: An International Review of Crime and Society
Posted at April 15, 2015 01:12:14AM EST by Samuel Owens
Gilligan, James. "Punishment Fails. Rehabilitation Works." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Froomfordebate%2F2012%2F12%2F18%2Fprison-could-be-productive%2Fpunishment-fails-rehabilitation-works>.
(UNODC 2015, United Nations Department of Crime 2015, Why promote prison reform?)
(Herbert 2008, The Abolitionists Criminal Conspiracy, The Guardian July 27, 2008.)
Posted at April 16, 2015 12:25:18AM EST by Ryan Tarasoff
The Sentencing Project, Research and Advocacy for Reform
Incarceration Rate, Crime Drop Link Disputed--Oliver Yates Libaw
Posted at April 16, 2015 11:38:56PM EST by Samuel Owens
Same as before, also mentioning the studies that the proposition cited
Posted at April 17, 2015 07:02:40PM EST by Ryan Tarasoff
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 19, 2015 08:15:00AM EST by Guy Risko
|Category||Ryan Tarasoff||Samuel Owens|
|Use of evidence:||3||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||2.7||5|
|Identification of key points:||3||5|
|Comments:||You need to focus on winning your best argument against reform, that it makes prisons more powerful and that it increases prison populations. The opp in this debate spends a lot of time wiggling out of that claim (he says reform = reduced recidivism = reduced people in prison), so you need to spend a lot of time talking about why the existence of prisons, no matter how good, breaks the criminal justice system.||-- When do you stop reading that piece of evidence in your first speech?
-- Good work on impact comparison. Next step for you: do some more direct solvency comparison for claims like funding. I think you win that there's a good internal link to increased return on investment from your reform, but I'm not sure you answer the internal link to abolition (that ALL that money gets freed up). He doesn't make that argument in this speech, but that's sort of the assumption that happen.
The decision is for the Opposition: Samuel Owens
Reason for Decision:
Reform solves all of the major harms of the Proposition, and the proposition doesn't do a good job of holding the opp accountable for increased prisons populations.
The historical argument is new and also answered by the opp's empirical example.