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: Ryan Tarasoff (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Samuel Owens (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: Guy Risko (Bard High School Early College)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Ryan Tarasoff
    Ryan Tarasoff

    Samuel Owens
    Samuel Owens
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    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. <>.

    (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
    Delivery skill: 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.

    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: