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: Paul H. Lim (NEI Education) vs. Opposition: Alondra Mendoza (Unaffiliated)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Paul H. Lim
    Paul H. Lim

    Alondra Mendoza
    Alondra Mendoza
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2015 02:22:15AM EST by Paul H. Lim



    Time: 3:52

    Posted at April 22, 2015 02:37:16AM EST by Alondra Mendoza



    Oliveira, E. (n.d.). An Institution on Trial .

    Departament of Justice. (2013, july). Retrieved from

    Watch, M. (2015, April 03). Retrieved from

    Economic Policy Institute. (2013, May 16). Retrieved from

    Posted at April 22, 2015 11:07:23PM EST by Paul H. Lim



    Time: 2:59

    Posted at April 23, 2015 10:56:09PM EST by Alondra Mendoza



    Restorative solutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from

    Wikipedia. (2015, april 19). Retrieved from

    AOL. (2015, January 10). Retrieved from

    Merco Press. (2013, November 13). Retrieved from

    Posted at April 25, 2015 02:46:28AM EST by Paul H. Lim



    Time: 2:02


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2015 07:44:18PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Paul H. Lim Alondra Mendoza
    Use of evidence: 4 4.1
    Delivery skill: 4.5 4.7
    Coherence of arguments: 3.8 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 3.5
    Identification of key points: 4.1 4
    Comments: Great job starting with definitions. I'm not a huge fan of your causal determinism argument. To say that people shouldn't be punished for what they do is bold statement that needs more back up. It seems like you're throwing it out there as a time suck. Your second contention is much better though. I like the redirection of funds to rehabilitation argument. Your third contention is also good. I think your speech would have been better if you focused more on contentions two and three instead of wasting time on your first contention. Good job on providing cites for your speech. However, I'm not sure if all the cites you use in your speech is listed in your cites since I don't see the Huffington Post cite.

    Good job on answering the opposition's argument with your rehabilitation argument. You also do a good job at using that to answer the economics argument. I'm happy you didn't extend your casual determinism argument. However, the policy judge in me wish you did since it was entirely conceded. However, that proves the point I made in the previous paragraph... that your time would have been better spent elsewhere.

    Good job bringing your definition of prisons back up in order to prove your terms of the debate.
    You need to more clearly weigh your unemployment argument versus prison existence. It is clever how you say that it would increase crime due to increased poverty. You should edit your video in order to remove the background static. It's a relatively easy operation. There's a short video on how in the lecture section of this website. Good job on providing numbers on the effectiveness of prisons. I think you should have spent more time developing your prison reform argument. Ie get into the details about how you are proposing prisons should be reformed and cites for how it could work.

    I think you need a better response to rehabilitation centers argument since even if it's a "loss of freedom" it isn't the same as a "prison." You need to have a debate over the definition over what constitutes a "prison" in order to win that argument. If you don't have a good answer to rehabilitation centers it seems like that the proposition's advocacy will solve for the majority of your arguments.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Paul H. Lim

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the proposition side since rehabilitation centers would be better than prisons. Prisons are for punishment and rehabilitation centers are for reformation. The prop presents evidence that rehab centers have empirically worked, saved governments money, and help decrease crime. At the point the opposition doesn't directly debate the definition of "prisons," the proposition is able to wiggle out of the majority of the opposition's arguments since criminals aren't just free to do what they want. They still end up detained and removed from society. The only difference is that the place they are put into works at adequately reforming inmates in order to decrease the likelihood of repeat offenses. The other option the opposition could have had to win the round is by having a more robust defense for why "punishment" is a good idea even absent the idea of reform. Ie the point of prisons aren't to make criminals better but to punish them for their offenses. More on this would enable me to vote for the opposition even if I side with the proposition over the definition of "prisons." However, since neither of those two things happen, I think that rehab centers are a better option than prisons given the debate.

    1 Comment

    Thank you judge for taking the time in this debate to judge our debate and for your feedback. Also, thank you Alondra for taking the time in this debate as well. - Paul H. Lim on April 26, 2015 at 08:42PM 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: