Judge: Frank Santos (Binghamton University)
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 09:31:20PM EST by Jarrid Pantel
Posted at April 14, 2015 11:49:02PM EST by Sam Burns
This house believes prisons should be abolished. I negate
My opponent claims that since this house is not specific, this house should be his house. But if we are looking at this debate from his house than we must consider the rights abuses going on in his very own house before trying to tackled a flawed prison system that needs reform.
FW: The Proposition in this debate must advocate, as the resolution states, for the abolition of prisons. That means that society will stop using prisons altogether. If they cannot then, the Opposition in this round must earn your ballot judge.
I will now move my one main argument: Prison reform is the best solution. Yes, the prison system as we know it is extremely flawed, but completely scrapping them does nothing but cause more problems. What do we do with those awaiting trial? What do we do with violent criminals that are a danger to society? In my opponents opinion, we just take them, and push them over there. Hes saying that if we dont acknowledge them then the problem is essentially solved. The best way to solve our prison issues is to one, ban for-profit prisons that want more and more inmates to come in so they do nothing to rehabilitate them, and two, put tighter regulations on the prisons so that the rights abuses will no longer go on. There are no viable alternatives to the prison system we currently have. a study done by the department of justice found that even though the boot camp program for inmates did provide short term positive results in attitudes, it did not lead to a decrease in recidivism. The alternatives that are out there that hope to replace prisons are still in their infancy and have not been proven to work
Now on to my opponents case.
His main argument is penal colonies, but in reality, penal colonies have never really worked. Take Australia for example. When the continent was turned, essentially, into a giant prison, the inmates took over and killed a bunch of the native people. Im pretty sure thats doing nothing to make them functioning members of society again.
My opponent is advocating for city prisons, not for prison abolishment. Hes not really even supporting his own side. He saying we should take a bunch of highly dangerous inmates, group them together in a walled off city, and they cant leave or they will be shot. Theres no supervision, so my opponent wants to ignore the clear danger of his plan.
Also, with regards to Arkham city, he says in the beginning of his speech that we dont have to necessarily look at the real world, and then qualifies his arkham city example by saying that the problems arkham city faces wont happen in the real world. Hes playing devils advocate here judge, and thats one reason to pick up the opposition.
His other example was the San Pedro prison in Boliva. First off, I want to point out its still called a prison. Second, 80% of the offenders are in there for drug related offenses. Many people with drug addictions arent violent criminals, so thats one reason there isnt as much violence at San Pedro. But still, by his own definition, its still a prison as it falls under a vessel
AFF MUST BE TOPICAL
A. Interpretation: The affirmative must be topical by specifying an advocacy that abolishes prisons.
B. Violation: The affirmatives advocacy is non-topical in that it doesnt abolish prisons and only creates what they literally refer to several times as a prison city which is still a prison.
a. Predictability: The only way I can beat back their position is by arguing the non topical part of their advocacy in order to gain access to their topical impact. However, I should not be expected to argue against them making non-topical arguments because I expected to debate the text of the resolution because it is the only thing debaters have going into the round. Without predictability, arguments will not clash because they are unable to engage one another. This is key to fairness because the resolution is predictable because it has been proclaimed as the topic of the debate.
b. Ground Skew: The only way for me to have fair access to arguments is if the Affirmative argues for the topic, which is to abolish prisons. They not only dont do this but instead create a city prison that they attempt to justify with a Merriam Webster dictionary definition that cuts down on the ground I can argue against. The very example they refer to is called the San Pedro Prison, showing the contradiction they are creating by simply avoiding the burden the Affirmative has which is to defend a topical implementation of the plan.
1. Fairness: If debate isnt fair, people will stop doing it if you can just cheat and win without fulfilling your burden
2. Education: If the Affirmative can just avoid discussing the very important issue of abolishing prisons by just creating a different type of prison then the whole point of the discussion is lost and we dont gain any education form it.
You should evaluate this under competing interpretations and absent them justifying their own interp you will always vote them down to ensure that future rounds dont have people read arguments that can cheat to win.
Thesis: The idea that some lives are worth less is the root of all that is wrong the world. The affsattempt to appoint their dog as a leader of their prison city is couched in the same style of rationality that justifies the domination and destruction of the non-human world as they not only didnt consult them but also hold them against their will as a prisoner in their own house. Our argument is that there is no objective way to distinguish between humans and nature, and that the arbitrary exclusion of nature from our ethical considerations is responsible for the instrumentalization of all forms of life.
A) Framework: the judge should endorse the more responsible ethical stance.
This is best:
1. Responsibility is prior to reasonalterity demands that we work for the other before we determine which avenues are viable for this work. Their attempt to define legitimate experience of otherness while participating in the subjugation of an other in the very video they posted demonstrates a need for the critique.
2. The 1AC rigs the game in advance, divesting our ecological encounters of any ethical forcetheres no longer any element of decision, its only a matter of running the numbers. We impact turn the value of their debate without prior ethical considerations.
The aff reduces the vibrance of ecological diversity to calculations of pure exchange valuelife itself is implicated in terms of economic growth and understood through the reductive lense of anthropocentrism. The radical difference of the animal is closed off and ignored, cut down to what can be made profitable or useful, in this case to serve their purpose of running their prison city
UtilityUtilitarian calculation is violent and anthropocentric
a. Commensurates differenceeverything is collapsed to the base standard of happiness to normalize populations for easier management, eradicating or ignoring ineffable differences which constitute particular beings
b. Excludes othernessanimals and other forms of life are left out in the cold for having less happiness than humans, justifying continual atrocity
c. Commodifies beingturns life into a statistical living-on where we have value only insofar as we can be economically productive, dismissing creativity and joy in favor of an ever-expanding workforce
1. Speciesism is an enabling condition for unspeakable violence. It is a logical step from an anthropology which accepts colonization, economic exploitation, factory farming, animal testing, and ecosystem degradation without batting an eye. Any ethics which accepts the reduction of the radical alterity of the animal and alien other into the same is equivocal to total extermination.
E) AlternativeVote negative and embrace the value of all life by freeing Mr. Pig (the name given to the living being imprisoned by my opponent)
Solvency: Net benefits
1. By solving for the imprisonment of what is labeled as a non-human animal we are able to break down the threat of total extermination that comes from Speciesism.
Posted at April 15, 2015 10:13:41PM EST by Jarrid Pantel
previous vid. google devil's advocate for my definition
Posted at April 17, 2015 10:43:21PM EST by Jarrid Pantel
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 18, 2015 06:57:04PM EST by Frank Santos
|Category||Jarrid Pantel||Sam Burns|
|Use of evidence:||4||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3.5||6|
|Identification of key points:||4||4.5|
|Comments:||You need to use all of your time in your opening speech and make multiple arguments. Your only argument made in your opening were the use of penal colonies. Even if that is your main argument, you should make additional alternative arguments that the opposition will have to address. Instead, Sam was able to spend his whole speech breaking down your one argument as opposed to having to waste time addressing other arguments.
Also, your opponent went over 30 seconds in his opening while accusing you of rule violations. If you would have brought this up, as it is a grave violation as stated in the rules, you would have won the round due to the hypocrisy of the opposition's fairness argument.
As the proposition, you need to put the opposition on the defensive, where as Same put you on the defensive throughout the debate. You simply could have deemed Mr. Pig's inclusion irrelevant (which it is) and continued to make arguments about the topic. As a judge, I want to give whoever argues the topic most eloquently the win. He sort of sucked you into arguing against the topic where you had an opportunity to win because of topical arguments that you failed to take advantage of.
Avoid name-calling and jargon like "super-cool" and "crap". You will always reflect better on the judge if you combat your opponent eloquently and professionally.
I thought your ethos was great, you spoke passionately and your opening especially had a fair amount of research and sources.
|You need to slow down your delivery just a little bit. I understand the need to get as much in as possible, but you can't sacrifice coherence in doing so.
Your opening was a full 30 seconds over the time-limit, which is a grave violation, and makes your fairness argument hypocritical. Luckily, Jarrid failed to bring this up in his rebuttal, or I would have probably have given him the decision. You have to make sure if you are making a procedural argument, you are not violating it yourself.
Great job addressing all of your opponents arguments. The opposition is usually known to concede at least one argument, but you broke down his speeches frame by frame in a way that made you easier to vote for.
The decision is for the Opposition: Sam Burns
Reason for Decision:
This was a very close to debate, and each side exposed the other. Ultimately, the opposition made a more coherent argument that penal colonies are merely a euphemism for a prison that the affirmative was not able to evidence otherwise. The opposition
Criticisms have been noted in your individual feed backs. Good debate!