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: Sam Burns (Santa Clara University) vs. Opposition: Jack Young (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: liam donnelly (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Sam Burns
    Sam Burns
    vs.



    Jack Young
    Jack Young
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 13, 2015 11:40:10PM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 14, 2015 05:20:24PM EST by Jack Young

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/03/09/do-prisons-reduce-crime-news/

    Posted at April 16, 2015 01:45:06AM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/24/making-prison-worse-doesnt-reduce-crime-it-increases-it/

    Posted at April 16, 2015 05:14:45PM EST by Jack Young

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 18, 2015 12:33:06AM EST by Sam Burns

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp&tid=1

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 18, 2015 02:42:01AM EST by liam donnelly

    Category Sam Burns Jack Young
    Use of evidence: 2 2.9
    Delivery skill: 4.5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 1.8 2.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.7 2.7
    Identification of key points: 2.5 3.2
    Comments: constructuve:
    - how do you collapse capitalism? i don't think you ever explain this. I get how abolishing prisons abolishes capitalism or causes an alternative to capitalism to occur. For your next debate, you should consider reading "towards the abolition of the prison system" by steve martinot who makes this argument well.
    - watch your rhetoric. Using anthropocentric metaphors like "treat like livestock" while saying later we need an economic system that honors nature is problematic.
    - your alternatives to capitalism aren't really in line with your defense of the rez. Norway still imprisons people.
    - What's your answer to a counterplan that only bans private prisons? you should have some offense beyond just this.
    - you cite a lot of stats about california. why not look up these stats for the nation? they might not be as good for you but they would still prove your points.

    Rebuttal
    - you spend a lot of time talking about how he "dropped your case." That doesn't auto mean I vote aff, of course--you gotta weigh your case. In the minute or so you spent saying he dropped your case, you could have done some better impact calc
    - you need a more on-point response to the first piece of evidence.
    - still unsure why "i provide an alt to capitalism" is a reason to vote aff

    Closing
    - you're not thinking "big picture" enough. why do you win? Your voters aren't really cutting it here.
    constructive:
    - good job reading evidence
    - you can cut some of these pieces of evidence down by a bit and get a little more out.
    - see my comments on the prop's constructive for arguments you can make.
    - you need some defense to win this debate--why is his offense wrong?
    - these pieces of evidence aren't the best you can find. the second one seems to conflate correlation with causation and the first seems to not really make a real claim, and it's about england.

    Rebuttal and closing
    - it was good that it eventually got answered, but this "only about private prisons not all prisons" argument is new. it also isn't very good: his case is an example of the rez, not the entire rez. you need a reason why he has to defend the entire resolution to win the debate. also, his california examples are about non-private prisons (though still not all prisons).
    - Russia was a communist state, not a socialist state, and his examples of good socialist states aren't very totalitarian. You need a better explanation of how this applies.
    - What's the impact to "social order"? what does that even mean? Have an impact, probably something about high crime rates from the criminal america evidence, and weigh it for a bit.
    - don't re-read evidence. Extend it, and flesh out why it's important. You already read it. Don't waste my time.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Jack Young

    Reason for Decision:

    The short version is that I felt like there was a large risk that prisons were necessary to maintain social order that outweighed a smaller risk that prisons could collapse greed and elitism. These two values aren't really ever compared, so I feel like they are of about equal importance.

    How i got there:
    - I don't really give the prop any of his socialism alternative. I don't understand why this is a reason to vote prop.
    - Prop wins that the US has a high incarceration rate now, as the negative's evidence is about england. Opp should point this out, but i'm willing to reject evidence that is so completely misquoted.
    - I don't think the prop wins that any alternative solves. The closing speech doesn't answer the "fines don't work" argument and the arguments about how socialist societies have had prisons is (a) still saying prisons are good and (b ) not a reason to vote aff (above) and (c) new.
    - I don't know how the aff solves capitalism. I sort of understand how the california statistics mean you solve a small subset of elitism, but I give very little weight to this argument.
    - I think the negative is winning a strong amount of the "solves crime" argument which is impacted as "maintaining social order" in the closing speech because the closing speech doesn't really respond to it. The recidivism argument needs better application as a response, and some response to this.

    so, tldr: I have to do a lot of work for the prop to win a lot of his offense, while the opposition's offense isn't very stong.

    For what it's worth, I expected to vote for the prop until his last speech, which just didn't seem to piece things together enough for me.


    1 Comment

    woops, meant to say:

    so, tldr: I have to do a lot of work for the prop to win a lot of his offense, while his answer to the opposition's offense isn't very stong.
    - liam donnelly on April 18, 2015 at 02:44AM 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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT