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: Bianca Anderson (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Moe Kobayashi (Shorin Global)

Judge: Jevon Henry (The University of the West Indies)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Bianca Anderson
    Bianca Anderson
    vs.



    Moe Kobayashi
    Moe Kobayashi
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2015 10:12:03PM EST by Bianca Anderson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2015 11:32:23AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 22, 2015 09:42:01PM EST by Bianca Anderson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2015 09:41:41AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 24, 2015 11:36:14PM EST by Bianca Anderson

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2015 01:20:24AM EST by Jevon Henry

    Category Bianca Anderson Moe Kobayashi
    Use of evidence: 3.6 3.6
    Delivery skill: 4 4.1
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3.6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 3.8
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.6
    Comments: Bianca gave an interesting definition of the motion which was fairly well articulated as to what crimes were being classified as non-violent and sought to point to alternatives which she suggested were better suited for these individuals than prison. She stuck to her line of argumentation throughout. Her closing was way below the allotted time and it is encouraged that speakers use up their time. Moe started off very well. Her presentation of the 'Person A and Person B' scenario was very vivid. Her main arguments, however, were more directed on the prison system on a whole and not precisely at the prison system for non-violent crimes as put forward by proposition. Time should also have been better used as combined she spoke for less than 8 minutes when she had a total of 9 minutes which means that arguments and rebuttals could have been better developed throughout.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Bianca Anderson

    Reason for Decision:

    Proposition's definition of the resolution set up an interesting debate which opposition took up and tackled from the start but then went into argumentation which was more against prisons in general. This therefore caused some amount of disconnect. Opposition did a good job of trying to highlight that rehabilitation does occur in prisons but proposition suggested that external rehabilitation would be better which was a good clash in the debate that both sides could have explored deeper. Opposition's main flaw was that her arguments presented in her constructive were directed more so at prisons in general and not necessarily within the context that proposition defined the debate which was the context that the debate ended up taking for the most part. Both speakers should try to use up their allotted time.


    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