Judge: Susan Worst (Wood River High School)
Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished
Paul H. Lim
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 12, 2015 11:58:48PM EST by Paul H. Lim
Posted at April 14, 2015 08:00:16PM EST by Bryan Goldfarb
Posted at April 16, 2015 12:51:31AM EST by Paul H. Lim
Posted at April 16, 2015 08:01:26PM EST by Bryan Goldfarb
Posted at April 18, 2015 12:44:26AM EST by Paul H. Lim
(I apologize for going over the time limit by 3 seconds last time so I have taken 3 seconds out of my speech)
Thank you Judge Susan Worst and Opponent Bryan Goldfarb for taking the time to participate in this fun debate!
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 19, 2015 04:03:30AM EST by Susan Worst
|Category||Paul H. Lim||Bryan Goldfarb|
|Use of evidence:||4.4||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||3.7||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.1||3.7|
|Identification of key points:||3.5||3|
|Comments:|| I thought it was an interesting strategy to argue causal determinism. I don't personally agree with it, but since opp doesn't argue it I accept it as true.
The rest of your case is really reforms, which could have been proposed by either side. By framing a prison in terms of its intention to punish, you were able to make them yours.
You have a nice presentation and a clear speaking voice. Make sure you can explain your arguments without reading them...that will make them more persuasive.
|Your strongest argument was where you pointed out that a rehab center one is forced to go to and not allowed to leave is essentially a prison. The problem was that you let your opponent define the round in terms of intentions and purpose. (The purpose of locking them up is to rehabilitate them, so it's not a prison, whose purpose is to punish.)
You also ended up saying that prisons should eventually be abolished, just not now.... Since the resolution doesn't specify a timeline, you're basically saying the prop is right.
A greater emphasis on rehab is something you could have argued on your side... Saying it is a reform of the system rather than an abolition.
You are thinking the problem through and coming up with common sense answers to his arguments. A little more organization and more effective use of evidence will help your presentation to better persuade people to take your side.
The decision is for the Proposition: Paul H. Lim
Reason for Decision:
The proposition basically argues that no one has free will and therefore should not be punished for anything s/he does. The opposition concedes this, as well as the definition of prison as a building for punishing crimes. Even though I don't find this to be a very strong argument, I accept it because both debaters agree that it's true. This is enough to affirm.
All in all, I would have liked to see more clash in this round.
Thanks, Paul and Bryan, for participating and seeing the round through.