Judge: Rachel Cotrino (Binghamton University)
Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 20, 2015 09:37:28AM EST by Richard Chen
Davis, A.Y. 2003. Are Prisons Obsolete? http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Angela-Davis-Are_Prisons_Obsolete.pdf
Prisoner's Justice Day Committee. A Model for Prison Abolition. http://www.prisonjustice.ca/downloads/model_for_abolition.pdf
"1% of the incarcerated are murderers": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/13/wonkbook-11-facts-about-americas-prison-population/
Posted at April 21, 2015 11:07:48PM EST by Cooper Dean
http://www.classroomelectric.org/volume2/gruesz/history.htm (POW and civil war)
Posted at April 22, 2015 09:37:07PM EST by Richard Chen
Difference between jails and prisons:
House arrest alt:
US prison budget:
Posted at April 23, 2015 10:23:53PM EST by Cooper Dean
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 24, 2015 10:51:24AM EST by Richard Chen
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 26, 2015 03:14:00PM EST by Rachel Cotrino
|Category||Richard Chen||Cooper Dean|
|Use of evidence:||5||2.7|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.5||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||4|
|Identification of key points:||4.7||3.5|
|Comments:||For Use of Evidence: Credible (although somewhat biased) sources, all cites were checked. It would have been helpful if you had provided the pages numbers you were referring to in your cites. While I appreciated the fact that you attached the entire booklet or book in some contexts, it made it very difficult to determine which parts of the books/booklet you were referring to.
For Delivery Skill: Excellent considering the amount of information and points you made, however, you were unnecessarily argumentative, for example how you told the opposition not to make the POW argument because it was a bad argument.
Coherence of Arguments: Incredibly detailed and responsive to the Opposition.
Responsiveness to Opponent: Very good; your points would have been the strongest if you did not reprimand the Opposition in your argument.
|Use of Evidence. More cites would have been helpful and would better emphasize how reliable you are in a debate.
Delivery Skill: Very good! You made your points smoothly and were not unnecessarily argumentative.
Coherence of Arguments: The POW argument would have been better if you figured away to link it to issues we have now as a country.
I thought a strong argument was your argument concerning the resolution, and if I were to find that one "prison" was necessary, then the Proposition failed to prove it's point, that "prisons must be abolished."
The decision is for the Proposition: Richard Chen
Reason for Decision:
While I appreciated Cooper's consistency in argument, and explanation of what a true vote for abolition of prisons would mean, vis a vis Richard's demand to abolish them, I ultimately found more persuasive Richard's argument.
I ultimately voted in favor of Richard because Richard made many points that were not rebutted by Cooper. While I appreciated Cooper's argument that by finding the need in one prison, means that the Proposition has failed to show why we should abolish them, and as such I should vote for Cooper, I believe that this resolution was a debate about as much as the policy as about the semantics.
I commend both Richard and Cooper. The both of you did a wonderful job. Good luck!