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: Bobby Good (Pay Ashley Back Program) vs. Opposition: Nanami Abematsu (Shorin Global)

Judge: Rebecca Hayes (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Bobby Good
    Bobby Good
    vs.



    Nanami Abematsu
    Nanami Abematsu
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2015 12:14:32AM EST by Bobby Good

    Citations

    Show

    1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/euros-big-drop-puts-u-s-economy-federal-reserve-to-the-test-1422059437

    2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/02/us-usa-prisons-idUSTRE5215TW20090302

    3. http://www.prisonfellowship.org/1920/01/americas-prisons-cost-too-much/

    4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/authors/ampp3d-from-mirror/prison-doesnt-work-50-time-3748230

    Posted at April 14, 2015 06:17:54PM EST by Nanami Abematsu

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2015 10:29:01PM EST by Bobby Good

    Citations

    Show

    1st speech

    Posted at April 17, 2015 08:29:20AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 17, 2015 11:48:47PM EST by Bobby Good

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 19, 2015 12:09:23PM EST by Rebecca Hayes

    Category Bobby Good Nanami Abematsu
    Use of evidence: 5 3
    Delivery skill: 4 2
    Coherence of arguments: 3 2.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4
    Identification of key points: 4 2.5
    Comments: Your opening was very strong, and your use of evidence was excellent, and, moreover, very persuasive. My only negative comment regarding the opening is that I thought you said there were four points, and the argument really rested on two. Your delivery was strong. Your first argument was strong, coherent, and persuasive. Your second argument regarding the economics of prisons was coherent, but not persuasive, and not well supported. Your responsiveness to your opponent was quite good- you quickly and effectively pointed out her concession of your key points and why this should lead the judge to vote in your favor. Your responsiveness to the opponent's argument was good, and I think you effectively countered his second argument regarding the economics of prisons versus other national spending. Your argument was mostly clear, but your delivery could use more work and practice.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Bobby Good

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition's first, main argument regarding the ineffectiveness of prisons and their often counterproductive effect of perpetuating crime, and his excellent citation to strong evidence, won the day. The opponent's main argument, regarding the use of education within prisons, did not effectively counter this argument.


    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