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: Moe Kobayashi (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Fiona Tarzy (Binghamton University)

Judge: liam donnelly (Unaffiliated)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Moe Kobayashi
    Moe Kobayashi
    vs.



    Fiona Tarzy
    Fiona Tarzy
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2015 02:56:03AM EST by Moe Kobayashi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2015 01:37:17AM EST by Fiona Tarzy

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3372716&fileId=S0953820800003952
    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    Posted at April 23, 2015 08:10:10AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2015 10:16:19PM EST by Fiona Tarzy

    Citations

    Show

    My citations can be viewed in the opposition constructive video.

    Posted at April 25, 2015 02:44:14AM EST by Moe Kobayashi

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 25, 2015 06:14:56PM EST by liam donnelly

    Category Moe Kobayashi Fiona Tarzy
    Use of evidence: 4.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 4 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 3.2 2.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.3 3.7
    Identification of key points: 3.2 3.3
    Comments: Constructive:
    - good work, overall. I liked your organization and your use of evidence, it was quite good.
    - your second advantage doesn't seem to create any causation, only correlation.

    Rebuttal
    - whenever you address your opponents arguments, you spend time explaining them; you don't need to do that, though, and it seems like it is wasting your time.
    - good work, overall, on refuting your opponent's arguments and extending your own.

    Rebuttal/closing
    - you need more discussion of implications of arguments, and to address some of your opponents arguments a bit better. But otherwise, nice work.
    constructive
    - I like the reform good counter-advocacy, but it seems super vague. What sort of reform? just educational reform?
    - Your arguments about prisoners being released causing rape, murder, etc aren't made in a very complete way. I don't think that murder and rape affect all other people outside of prison, and I think you need a reason why prisons deter such activities; don't they already happen? Furthermore, I think that the assumption that releasing a rapist or murderer would automatically mean that they rape and murder people is flawed. There are just a lot of flaws in this line of argument.

    rebuttal/closing
    - how would reform change the prison system ideologically?
    - I still think the same flaws in your "prisons make life more safe" apply. Your argument isn't that prisons make society safer, it's just that crime makes society unsafe.

    In the future, if an opponent forgets to post cites, instead of making it an issue in the round, you should just google the parts of the cite that are read and it will likely turn up, or message your opponent for the cites.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Moe Kobayashi

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good, enjoyable debate.

    My reason for decision:
    Reforms don't solve for violence and low quality of life in prisons, and the opposition isn't winning the net benefit to the counter-plan.

    Reforms counterplan:
    I don't think the opposition's rebuttal addresses the argument that reforms have been going on for quite a while and haven't changed the amount of sexual violence and inhumane conditions in prisons.
    Otherwise, the opposition is winning most of this argument--the "costs money" argument is new and undeveloped, and the proposition doesn't really have any other arguments here, though it doesn't really matter since the opposition isn't winning a net benefit to this argument anyways.

    "Prisons make society safer":
    I don't think this argument is deployed very persuasively. It seems like all of the opp's reasons why prisons make society safer are just reasons why crime makes society unsafe. These aren't the same thing--crime exists with and without prisons, and there is not evidence to suggest that prisons deter crime (not that the evidence doesn't exist, just that no argument about why prisons can deter crime is made). Additionally, the prop argues that only 1% of people in prisons are in there for violent crimes--while 100% of them are subject to inhumane conditions (a claim the opp should have addressed--which means that this argument isn't a reason to vote for the opp. Finally, the opp argues that even non violent crimes like dealing drugs or tax evasion are bad for society, but this is never quantified or impacted. I also think that the massive amount of violence that occurs in prisons outweighs any reason why drug dealers do bad stuff to society (can you really say that rape in prisons is less important than making sure people have a slightly harder time getting drugs?).


    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT