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: Jacqueline Haugen (Binghamton University)

Judge: Lucy Peterson (Bard High School Early College)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Bobby Good
    Bobby Good

    Jacqueline Haugen
    Jacqueline Haugen
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2015 11:40:33PM EST by Bobby Good



    On my Round 1 debate thingy

    Posted at April 22, 2015 12:31:50AM EST by Jacqueline Haugen



    "Alternatives To Incarceration In A Nutshell." FAMM. Families Against Mandatory Minimums, 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. <>.

    Weber, Ryan, and Allen Brizee. "Logical Fallacies." Purdue OWL: Logic in Argumentative Writing. Purdue University, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. <>.

    "Types of Prisons." Crime Museum. National Museum of Crime and Punishment, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. <>.

    "Long Term Trends and Recent Criminal Justice Policy Reforms." NASBO. The National Association of State Budget Officers, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. < Spending for Corrections.pdf>.

    Posted at April 22, 2015 08:14:40PM EST by Bobby Good






    5. Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214

    Posted at April 23, 2015 11:57:12PM EST by Jacqueline Haugen



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 25, 2015 01:43:17AM EST by Bobby Good



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2015 06:27:03PM EST by Lucy Peterson

    Category Bobby Good Jacqueline Haugen
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 1 1.5
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2 1
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Dear Bobby,
    Good work. I liked how you stuck to your guns and that you didn't take on a larger debate even when your opponent enticed you to. Do work on your delivery because it was very challenging to make sense of your arguments when you were speaking so quickly. While I thought some of your arguments were a stretch, your point about recidivism was well supported and you were right to say that your opponent never showed how her solutions would bring about different results.
    Dear Jacqueline.
    Good job making arguments. You had a strong case by laying out the alternatives and only keeping high security prisons. I was very disappointed that you were so disrespectful to your opponent, and it lost you the match. It is always better to maintain decorum in a debate instead of calling your opponent "absurd." Furthermore, slow down when you speak. There is no reason to rush through argument and have them lost on the judge. At times it was difficult to understand you.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Bobby Good

    Reason for Decision:

    The decision is in favor of the proposition. While both sides made good arguments, ultimately the claim that recidivism is a problem that plagues the prison system from the inside out was never successfully overturned, despite the many alternatives provided by the opposition. Even in absence of a realistic alternative, the point that prisons are useless because they fail to accomplish the reforms they are expected to carry out was not refuted with evidence from the opposition, and that argument was the strongest one brought forward. The opposition failed to successfully prove why maximum security prisons were different than the prisons that she did categorize as able to be abolished. Furthermore, the way that the Opposition presented her case was rather disrespectful, and her arguments lost some credibility because of that. Both sides should work on delivery, clarity, and doing good research such that you can respond to one another with more specifics and fewer generalities.

    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: