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: Miki Kawana (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Bobby Good (Pay Ashley Back Program)

Judge: Brandon Evans (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Miki Kawana
    Miki Kawana

    Bobby Good
    Bobby Good
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 07:26:12AM EST by Miki Kawana



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2015 01:44:28AM EST by Bobby Good



    Posted at April 15, 2015 07:34:53AM EST by Miki Kawana



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 16, 2015 11:53:23PM EST by Bobby Good




    Posted at April 18, 2015 02:02:41AM EST by Miki Kawana



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 19, 2015 11:30:59AM EST by Brandon Evans

    Category Miki Kawana Bobby Good
    Use of evidence: 3 4
    Delivery skill: 3.5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 2.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 4.5
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: I would recommend recording your speeches multiple times until you are satisfied with them. This format allows you to do so, and this gives you a unique opportunity to correct mistakes. Namely, although I thought your opening and closing speeches were very clear and well-performed, there were a couple moments in the middle speech where you stumbled. Re-doing speeches when this happens will allow you to convey your points better while giving you more time to make additional points. I would invest in better recording equipment. Mainly, your audio recording could be much better.

    Please look at the camera.

    A lot of your arguments are caricatures of policy debate. I will describe why I feel this way for all of the arguments you extend in the decision. The one argument you didn't extend that I thought was particularly silly was that not providing cites = lying = criminality = turns the case = thousands of people dying...please make arguments that pass the laugh test.

    Do more than just identify all of the concessions. Go for less and explain more.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Bobby Good

    Reason for Decision:

    Good debate, thanks for participating. I'll summarize the round by saying that although the opposition is factually wrong on nearly every point, he is technically correct because of how the debate went down. In debate, conceding an argument means that you grant it to be true, and as the opposition has repeatedly made clear, the proposition has conceded a few crucial points that make it very hard to vote in her favor:

    1. The economy disadvantage. I have to grant it as true that abolishing prisons would make AT&T collapse, which would make the economy decline, which would make the economy collapse, which would lead to nuclear war. In this debate, this is a big deal. In reality, it's nonsense. Even if I believe the high-magnitude, low-probability policy impacts the opposition is pushing, I think the internal-link work here is virtually non-existent. You can't just assert that $2.1 billion dollars would be enough to collapse the economy. I am highly skeptical that it would even collapse AT&T...I didn't even know they were in this business. Spend more time here next time as this doesn't take much to refute. These are also jobs that are artificially created from taxpayers dollars. I'm no economist, but if government mandated positions were the lynchpin of the economy, the government could create a booming one by hiring people to play with Play-Doh all day. I don't think that's how economics works.

    2. Utilitarianism. The needs of the many come before the needs of the few. The plan theoretically kills everyone on the planet. That is regrettably more important than the abuses of the prison system based on how the debate went down. Again, this is silly because of the reasons explained on my first point.

    3. The counter-plan. Cameras in the prisons could solve the bulk of the abuses in the prisons. I think this is plausible, but the proposition can make several arguments in the future to refute it nonetheless. Considering that several of the abuses are committed by prison guards, and the prison system would be monitoring themselves, there is a large incentive for covering things up.

    I think the opposition might have been better off with a counter-plan that substantially reduces the size of the prison system without completely abolishing it. A lot of the harms the proposition describes in her case are a result of an overgrown prison system. I do not have a lot of knowledge on this topic, but I do not believe the reforms she described in Scandinavia consisted in a total abolition of the prison system. Any reason why some people should be imprisoned for any reason could be a justification for not abolishing the system.

    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: