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: Ahmad Amireh (Liberty High School) vs. Opposition: Rachel McNair (Binghamton University)

Judge: Jesse Meyer (Lincoln High School)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Ahmad Amireh
    Ahmad Amireh

    Rachel McNair
    Rachel McNair
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 07:10:25PM EST by Ahmad Amireh



    Did not have time to do MLA format, but I hope you find this adequate. Standford (evidence, look under 2D pg 1221) (search pdf for two Philadelphia judges) (U of Southern Alabama search document for 28%) (The National Institute of Justice, search 76.6 percent) (Legal Action Center, read 1st paragraph) (U of Massachusetts, search a 1 percent) (Cornell, read 1st paragraph) (solitary confinement, read number 3) (Brown v. Plata, read 1st paragraph) (Roxanne Minott, read bullets 3 and 4) (Michigan Law Review, first paragraph of the conclusion)

    Posted at April 14, 2015 09:17:33PM EST by Rachel McNair



    Joan Petersilia, NIJ Journal No. 268, October 2011
    Beyond the Prison Bubble
    [Joan Petersilia is the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law at Stanford University and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center]

    prison, Jstor
    l.a.w., gloria kenyon and janis kelly
    Off Our Backs
    Vol. 7, No. 6 (july-august 1977), p. 10

    JULIA REYNOLDS, 11/27/201, The hidden impact of three strikes

    Jennifer Wedekind, Solitary Confinement and the Law

    Posted at April 15, 2015 11:07:31PM EST by Ahmad Amireh



    All of my evidence was from my constructive.

    Posted at April 16, 2015 08:32:03PM EST by Rachel McNair



    Nathan James, January 12, 2015, Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics,
    Reintegration into the Community,
    and Recidivism

    Posted at April 18, 2015 12:58:36AM EST by Ahmad Amireh



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 19, 2015 01:57:18PM EST by Jesse Meyer

    Category Ahmad Amireh Rachel McNair
    Use of evidence: 3.8 3.8
    Delivery skill: 3.4 3.1
    Coherence of arguments: 3.7 3.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.4 3.4
    Identification of key points: 3.6 3
    Comments: Small thing but your prop rebuttal video is sideways.

    Should = moral obligation. That's a great argument that I hear in LD all the time, but most if not all of your arguments impact back to a util style framework.

    You said "She drops the 14h amendment point but I'll talk about it later..." never never spoke of it again.
    Good rebuttal.

    Don't let him make generalizations. Sure, there are some bad judges that rig the system but he is generalizing that all do so. Also he assumes that the ones that go to prison are the head of the house. Don't let him just run with these.

    Solvency should be way way earlier than the last speech.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Ahmad Amireh

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the proposition. The round breaks down like this. The props argument that poverty would be increased because people go to jail and can't make money is extended through the round. The opps arguments against this are based on the three strikes law reducing government spending and the elimination of cap (there were a few more but they were defensive). The three strikes argument is phrased in terms of government spending not personal spending so in my mind, I don't see it having an effect on reducing poverty. The cap argument is really interesting but it comes at too late in the game for me to put much weight in it.

    The whole mutuality/alts debate is not really clear nor is it hashed out by the end so it is more of a passing thing than a serious voter.

    Overall, the opp had good points but as the debate went on, the speech style shifted from offensive to defensive and the reasons to vote for the opp vs reason to not vote for the pro began to skew. That is why I affirm.

    1 Comment

    Thank you Rachel for an AMAZING ROUND. Thank you judge for the insightful feedback. Thanks to you, I can make many improvements that will not only help me in this tournament but in the rest debate career. - Ahmad Amireh on April 19, 2015 at 02:12PM EST

    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: