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: Ahmad Amireh (Liberty High School) vs. Opposition: Ashley May (Lincoln High School)

Judge: Frank Santos (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Ahmad Amireh
    Ahmad Amireh

    Ashley  May
    Ashley May
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2015 05:22:56PM EST by Ahmad Amireh


    Show (Standford evidence, look under 2D pg 1221) (search pdf for two Philadelphia judges) (U of Southern Alabama search document for 28%) (The National Institute of Justice, search 76.6 percent) (Legal Action Center, read 1st paragraph) (U of Massachusetts, search a 1 percent) (Cornell, read 1st paragraph) (solitary confinement, read number 3) (Brown v. Plata, read 1st paragraph) (Roxanne Minott, read bullets 3 and 4) (Michigan Law Review, first paragraph of the conclusion)

    Posted at April 21, 2015 11:14:59PM EST by Ashley May



    4. American legislative exchange council
    5. July 2010
    6. Sep 2013

    Posted at April 22, 2015 11:04:31PM EST by Ahmad Amireh


    Show (David Miller, search In 2005, 10%)

    Posted at April 23, 2015 10:49:51PM EST by Ashley May



    Posted at April 25, 2015 02:36:26AM EST by Ahmad Amireh



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2015 06:54:21PM EST by Frank Santos

    Category Ahmad Amireh Ashley May
    Use of evidence: 5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 5.5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 6 4
    Identification of key points: 5 4.8
    Comments: First off, I just want to say great job. As is reflected in my scoring, your debate did not have many glaring weaknesses.

    That being said, be sure to watch your time limits. You were over by 10 seconds in your rebuttal and closing. While that isn't terrible, it is still a violation, and one that can hinder your argument.

    Your passion in your rebuttal and closing was great, but make sure to have more passion in your opening as well. Most of your emphatic statements are in response to your opponent, but not in reference to your own points in your opening. As a judge, that makes me thing you are more passionate about your opponent being incorrect than you being correct.

    As your opponent pointed out, be very careful using outdated sources. Especially in a subject matter like this which is being consistently researched, you want to try and stay within five years.

    Those are just nitpicking constructive criticism. Great work!
    This was an extremely difficult debate to judge. You had a solid and concise argument, but your opponent was able to point out the minor slip-ups in your argument, particularly the conceding of points.

    This was the determining factor of the decision. In the future, set the groundwork of responding to your opponents case even in your opening. It seemed to me as a judge that you had a predetermined opening speech regardless of your opponents opening. Many of your points did relate to his arguments, as is naturally the case, but you don't want the judge to have to make those connections. You could have easily modified some of your opening speech to include slight responses to your opponents case.

    Unfortunately, what ended up happening is you had a four-minute rebuttal and closing to essentially respond to two separate speeches from your opponent, and you simply didn't have enough time to make your case because of the plethora of arguments he was able to present.

    Again, it was an extremely close debate, and if you laid some ground work to refute his points in your opening, you could have theoretically had time not to concede his civil rights violation argument, or could have done more work to refute it.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Ahmad Amireh

    Reason for Decision:

    This was the most difficult debate I've had to judge by far. Each side was able to expose severe weaknesses in the other's argument.

    However, for me, it came down to conceded arguments, as the proposition's closing points out. Specifically, the constitutional violation was not refuted nearly enough by the opposition and became the biggest impact of the debate to judge.

    For this reason, the proposition won an extremely close debate.

    Great debate!

    Individual criticisms can be found in your personal sections.

    1 Comment

    Thank you Ashley for an amazing round. Thank you judge for your incredible insight. I will definitely research newer sources and work on the passion of my first speech. - Ahmad Amireh on April 26, 2015 at 07:57PM 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: