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: Ubu Suzuki (Chiba Kokusai High School) vs. Opposition: Wynnter Millsaps (Bard High School Early College)

Judge: liam donnelly (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Ubu Suzuki
    Ubu Suzuki
    vs.



    Wynnter Millsaps
    Wynnter Millsaps
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 03:51:52AM EST by Ubu Suzuki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2015 12:01:42AM EST by Wynnter Millsaps

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 16, 2015 02:35:33AM EST by Ubu Suzuki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2015 01:02:33AM EST by Wynnter Millsaps

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-scandinavian-prisons-are-superior/279949/

    Posted at April 18, 2015 01:34:00AM EST by Ubu Suzuki

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 18, 2015 03:39:45AM EST by liam donnelly

    Category Ubu Suzuki Wynnter Millsaps
    Use of evidence: 5 2.3
    Delivery skill: 4 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.8 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 3.7
    Identification of key points: 3.6 3
    Comments: constructive:
    - good job integrating statistics and evidence into your points, and making clear points with implications
    - your second point, safety, needs to be more reverse-casual. I'm not sure how any of the evidence you present indicates prisons increase safety, just that they don't empirically decrease safety.

    rebuttal
    - nice work going over her case and answering it.
    - try to incorporate your second point a bit more in answering her arguments about rapists and murderers.
    - perhaps you should make a theory-type argument: say that advocating for rehabilitation of prisons isn't a reason to vote for the opposition. Also, point out that what she is advocating seems pretty vague.



    constructive:
    - I really like your "reformism is better" argument.
    - you need more evidence about how finland is an example of prisons operating well
    - your arguments about how prisons would release rapists and murderers aren't responsive to her arguments here because you don't explain how prisons solve this. In other words, rape and murder happens in both the world of the prop and opp, why not prevent the little amount that happens in prison?
    - you spend time at the beginning of each contention explaining her argument. you don't need to do this. I listened and flowed it, too. https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif

    rebuttal/- closing:
    - i think a lot of your points about mental illness need some evidence to back them up
    - that being said, you're making a lot of really smart arguments
    - good work weighing the damage outside of prisons to the damage inside of it using her metric of the right to live

    The decision is for the Proposition: Ubu Suzuki

    Reason for Decision:

    Sexual violence still existing even under a method of prison reform and rehabilitation outweighs any benefit to such a method.

    I think that the opposition's strategy of rehabilitation doesn't solve for extreme sexual violence in prisons because, so long as prisons exist, such sexual violence still exists from prison guards. This is never answered.
    I also don't think that the opposition's turn that releasing prisoners to the public would create more sexual violence is effectively argued because there is no reason ever presented as to why releasing prisoners would cause more rape. just because a criminal is a rapist does not mean they would engage in more sexual violence than the status quo. In other words, the violence outside of the prison doesn't necessarily increase as a result of abolishing prisons. Not only is there no reason why this is true, but there is ample evidence presented by the prop that most prisoners are not inherently dangerous people that I think answers this argument quite well.
    I think the opposition's method of rehabilitation solves for the proposition's arguments about dignity of prisoners, though. No argument is made to the contrary.
    I also think that the arguments about how rehabilitation and prisons are good for prisoners with mental disorders is won by the opposition, and could have been a round winner, but I just do not know what the impact to this is (this is why I gave the opp her lowest score in "identification of key points"), and think that the proposition has spent some time explaining why sexual violence is super bad, so I prioritize solving for sexual violence.
    I do think that, if the opposition wins that the prop causes an increase in sexual violence from releasing prisoners they would win the debate because the opposition's closing remarks do a good job of comparing sexual violence in prisons and outside of them. But I don't think that a unique casual claim has been made.

    Good debate. Message me or comment below if you have any questions.


    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT