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: David O'Neill (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Preston Harrison (Winston Churchill High School)

Judge: Emme Davis (Waterman Elementary School)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • David O'Neill
    David O'Neill
    vs.



    Preston Harrison
    Preston Harrison
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2015 08:59:25PM EST by David O'Neill

    Citations

    Show

    Jonathan Simon: the new penology:Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications
    Zimbardo: the Lucifer Effect ibook edition page 451.

    Posted at April 21, 2015 05:13:31PM EST by Preston Harrison

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2015 08:25:12PM EST by David O'Neill

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 23, 2015 05:00:56PM EST by Preston Harrison

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2015 02:43:49PM EST by David O'Neill

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2015 04:11:13PM EST by Emme Davis

    Category David O'Neill Preston Harrison
    Use of evidence: 4.6 3
    Delivery skill: 4.5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 2.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5.6 3.7
    Identification of key points: 5.9 3
    Comments: Excellent job, especially in the later speeches. Make sure that you refectory speeches if you stumble or are not sure what you are going to say next.

    The decision is for the Proposition: David O'Neill

    Reason for Decision:

    Both sides were well prepared and used evidence well. This was one of the better debates I have seen in this format.

    I vote affirmative for a few reasons. First, I don't think the negative advances many arguments as to why prisons are good and without a specific structure for reforming prisons I believe there is a solvency deficit for the negative. Only the affirmative can guarantee that the abuses in prisons are eliminated. The negative should have spent more time discussing the most violent and unrepnetive criminals and arguing that we should have a smaller prison system just for them.

    The other reason is that the affirmative forwards a model of justice that is not retributive. And make some very persuasive arguments in this regard. This point was never responded to by the negative.


    1 Comment

    Thank you judge for your review of this debate and your insight. Preston, thank you so much for a spirited debate! I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors and am confident you will succeed. - David O'Neill on April 26, 2015 at 04:16PM 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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT