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: Connor Hayes (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Ethan Gurwitz (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: Rebecca Hayes (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Connor Hayes
    Connor Hayes
    vs.



    Ethan Gurwitz
    Ethan Gurwitz
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 10:35:49PM EST by Connor Hayes

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2015 12:31:59PM EST by Ethan Gurwitz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 15, 2015 11:38:34PM EST by Connor Hayes

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 16, 2015 03:30:41PM EST by Ethan Gurwitz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2015 12:41:42AM EST by Connor Hayes

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 19, 2015 11:39:55AM EST by Rebecca Hayes

    Category Connor Hayes Ethan Gurwitz
    Use of evidence: 3.5 2.5
    Delivery skill: 4.5 2.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 2.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.5 4
    Identification of key points: 4.5 3
    Comments: I was impressed with the delivery and coherence of the argument, and the response to your opponent. Your points were organized, well developed, and persuasive. You explained your arguments in a clear manor. I appreciated the conciseness of your arguments as well. I think you could have spent more time developing and explaining the specific reforms and could have cited to additional evidence regarding the likelihood of success. Your argument was very specific and clear. I appreciated your use of evidence, and your emphasis on it. I think you did a good job responding to your opponent's arguments. Your hand gestures were at times distracting, as were some of the filler words (like, um), and the overuse of the word literally. Some of your arguments, such as those regarding motivation for crime and the inevitability of recidivism and the perpetuation of crime generally, could have used support, or more nuance. As they were stated, they were unpersuasive. As your opponent commented, these comments can be perceived as offensive. Your argument regarding the proposal to move mentally ill prisoners to mental institutions which mentioned straightjackets was anachronistic, and therefore unpersuasive as well.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Connor Hayes

    Reason for Decision:

    The proponent made the following determinative argument: the opposition's argument addresses only 20 percent of the prison population, offering virtually no solutions for the other 80%. The proponent persuasively argued that there are major problems in the government-run prison system, and the opposition's argument did not address this effectively. The opposition did not effectively address the proponent's arguments regarding potential reforms.


    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