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: Nathan Stouffer (Wood River High School) vs. Opposition: Justin White (Binghamton University)

Judge: Jesse Meyer (Lincoln High School)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Nathan Stouffer
    Nathan Stouffer

    Justin White
    Justin White
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2015 12:07:06AM EST by Nathan Stouffer



    Here is the script for my speech.

    I strongly affirm the following resolution, This House believes that prisons should be abolished.

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    To officially end or stop: to completely do away with
    A building where people are kept as punishment for a crime or while they are waiting to go to court
    Returning to prison after being released
    Being convicted of a crime and sent to jail

    Framework (This is how the round is going to be judged)
    The affirmative must prove not that the current system doesnt work, but that there are much better alternatives in which we could totally abolish prisons and have a better society.
    The negative side of this debate must prove that the current system is better than all alternatives presented by me, the affirmative.

    Moving on to my arguments, which will be contentions proving that we dont need prisons, we need something that actually solves the problem.

    Contention 1 - The military solves for nonviolent criminals

    "America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders." America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders. The November Coalition, 1998. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    Entitled America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners, the JPI analysis of recent United States Justice Department data showed that over the past 20 years, the nonviolent prisoner population has increased at a rate much faster than the violent prisoner population, and that 77% of the people entering prisons and jails were sentenced for nonviolent offenses.

    Schaie, K. Warner. "Historical Influences on Lives and Aging." Google Books. Springer, 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    The military provides a quality environment for rehabilitation with a disciplined force and organized unit. According to Mattick in 1960, the state of Illinois tested about 3000 men and put them into the military. The results were amazing! Only 3.4% of criminals violated their parole while on active duty and in a follow up study of eight years after the fact, the rate of recidivism was only 10.5%, compared to the national average of 66.6%.

    This means that criminals will now be participating members of our society, we will be safer because these former criminals will now not be violating the law, and they will be a tiny burden for taxpayers. According to the New York Times, the annual average taxpayer cost is $31,286 per inmate. New York State was the most expensive, with an average cost of $60,000 per prison inmate, whereas it only costs about $10,000 to train a US soldier and put them on onshore, active duty. So now we will be seeing safety benefits from a larger and higher trained military as well.

    Contention 2 - Treatment institutions for the mentally different

    Torrey, E. Fuller., Aaron D. Kennard, Don Eslinger, Richard Lamb, and James Pavle. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons than Hospitals a Survey of the States. Arlington, Va: Treatment Advocacy Center, 2010. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States. Treatment Advocacy Center, May 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

    According to Torrey et. al. in 2010, In historical perspective, we have returned to the early nineteenth century, when mentally different persons filled our jails and prisons. At that time, a reform movement, sparked by Dorothea Dix, led to a more humane treatment of mentally different persons. For over a hundred years, mentally different individuals were treated in hospitals. We have now returned to the conditions of the 1840s by putting large numbers of mentally different persons back into jails and prisons. Recent studies suggest that at least 16 percent of inmates in jails and prisons have a serious mental difference.

    Given this, prisons to do not solve for the issues of the inmates, what they need are insane treatment institutions where people are dedicated to solving their problems not making them think about what they dont understand in little cell that solves almost nothing.

    Contention 3 - Public service for violent criminals

    So now that we have covered what to do with the majority of prisoners, we now have to look at the remaining 7% of criminals who happen to be intentionally violent.

    I think a clear solution here would to be put them in a boarding house where they receive counseling and help for the issue. They would work in the day as public service agents under the direction of a few armed supervisors to keep them in control. They can stay for however long their sentence is and the whole time they will be contributing to society, building many public services such as parks, roads, and bridges.

    According to The November Coalition, 1998

    The more discipline and actual real life work a person does, the more we see a decrease in crime rates because they will be under real life situations. When a person is confined in a small amount of space in prison or jail, they cant experience real life situations to help their problem. That's why people who have had a record for non-violent crimes can reduce their sentence with military services.

    Posted at April 22, 2015 01:10:07AM EST by Justin White




    Posted at April 22, 2015 11:24:02PM EST by Nathan Stouffer



    Same citations as last time.

    Posted at April 24, 2015 12:40:17AM EST by Justin White



    Same citations as the first speech plus the following:

    Posted at April 24, 2015 12:30:26PM EST by Nathan Stouffer



    Same as last time.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 25, 2015 03:29:03PM EST by Jesse Meyer

    Category Nathan Stouffer Justin White
    Use of evidence: 2.9 4
    Delivery skill: 3.5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.1 4.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.3 4.8
    Identification of key points: 3.3 4
    Comments: Contention 1: Yes, military service is an option, but according to military law, the armed forces don't have to accept. Also, there is a whole host of constitutional issues with this.

    Contention 2: I agree.

    Contention 3: Intentionally violent? Bad choice of words. Someone who commits murder in the heat of moment isn't ruled intentional (hence the reason why murder 1 chargers aren't based on in the heat of. Based on contention 1, they would fall into non violent offenders. I'd say "violent offenders" instead of intentional.

    And now we get the debate on whether rehab can be punishment too.... let the T debates begin.

    Oh, where in your case do you state that there prisons are 100% retributive now? If you want to get leverage off of this whole "his case is based on rehab and that is my ground" argument, you need to win that prisons aren't rehab now.
    Hmmmm, rebuttal first? Interesting. I guess since you can film again and again until you get it right, this is a legitimate strat. Good.

    Why does fiat exist? In policy, fiat comes from the imperative that there is some sort of action. Where is the imperative in this form of debate?

    I never though of minors and non citizens as AT's to cont 1. Nice job.

    Your rebuttal in the first con const was amazing.

    Although I'd like to see a bit more on the constructive for your case.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Justin White

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote con.

    1. The loss of rights in boarding houses is a form of punishment. Opp wins this point.

    2. The opp is winning this via arguments of minors, non citizens, and with the analysis on how the pros study was done during the Vietnam War. I can give some weight to this as there is only D on this point, but it's pretty darn good D.

    I do not erase things from the flow. The pro should have known. Good catch opp.

    Thus, I am buying the fact that the opp side of the resolution has a valid claim to his alts. Plus the opp puts a ton of D on the pros case which is never fully resolved by the pro.

    1 Comment

    Thanks for debating and judging. You're a really good debater, I hope you do well. - Nathan Stouffer on April 25, 2015 at 06:15PM 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: