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: nozomi shinagawa (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Illiah Pfau (Wood River High School)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • nozomi shinagawa
    nozomi shinagawa

    Illiah Pfau
    Illiah Pfau
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 07:04:02AM EST by nozomi shinagawa



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2015 08:16:51PM EST by Illiah Pfau



    Yanke, Ryan. "Lack of Poverty in Finland - BORGEN." BORGEN. Borgen Magazine, 29 July 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.
    Gongloff, Mark. "45 Million Americans Still Stuck Below Poverty Line: Census." The Huffington Post., 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.
    Lehrer, Eli. "Responsible Prison Reform Publications National Affairs."Responsible Prison Reform Publications National Affairs. National Affairs, Summer 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2015

    Posted at April 16, 2015 08:45:26AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 16, 2015 06:50:50PM EST by Illiah Pfau



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2015 10:17:29PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 18, 2015 11:29:42PM EST by David Kane

    Category nozomi shinagawa Illiah Pfau
    Use of evidence: 2 3
    Delivery skill: 2 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 2 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2 3
    Identification of key points: 2 3
    Comments: You did a decent job of explaining why prisons today are bad. However, you did not make the argument that society would be better without them.

    Try to tell a better story on this. Also, try to engage more with your opponents's arguments. He made some claims that were easy to refute, but you did not address them.

    E.g. his data about crime and poverty -- rich people commit crimes too. He didn't provide any data why his reforms would have better outcomes or would be better for inmates. He even said his approach might cost more, but you didn't bring that up as a disadvantage to his proposal.
    As I alluded to in the decision, you had some weak arguments, but your opponent did not exploit them. If crime was just about poverty, then why do rich people end up in prison?

    Also you made all of these very specific reform recommendations (e.g. lack of entertainment) with no evidence that those approaches work.

    Similarly, you even volunteered that your approach might cost more. (even if that was true) you should not volunteer that.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Illiah Pfau

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition wins the ballot.

    * The opposition turned the proposition's Finland example. (Finland still has prisons, and so therefore is not a good example for abolition)

    * The opposition addressed the proposition's concerns about impact on quality of life, but the proposition did not address the opposition's concern about what would happen if prisons were abolished.

    * The opposition's had some weaknesses (e.g. correlations between poverty and crime, reform approaches without evidence to assert effectiveness) that proposition did not respond to, and were allowed to stand.

    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: