Judge: Chase Hutchinson (Wood River High School)
Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 20, 2015 11:37:54PM EST by Jarrid Pantel
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 21, 2015 08:50:17PM EST by Andrew Seo
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 22, 2015 10:59:30PM EST by Jarrid Pantel
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 24, 2015 03:13:43AM EST by Andrew Seo
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 24, 2015 12:41:26PM EST by Jarrid Pantel
First, my opponent completely ignores the fact that I DID answer his argument. He agrees that a prison is a building that holds criminals, and my proposed penal colonies are the exact opposite, theyre not singular buildings where people are confined and watched over by correctional officers. Im still fulfulling the resolution, as I abolish the current prison system as it is now. He tries to change his definition in his last speech, but its too late; he already agreed with my definition, so we have to debate based around that definition.
The prisoners are being overwatched by Mr. Pig. I assure you, he will not allow for corruption and revolution. Why would you revolt against a dog as cute as him?
He concedes that there will be crime in prison no matter what. Therefor it doesnt matter if we instate penal colonies or not; theres going to be crime either way, and he doesnt account for this, in fact, agrees with it. Theyre being watched by Mr. Pig. He says nothing against this, so we can assume the exiles will be safe under his careful eye. His argument about supervision is therefor moot, as theyre being watched by my dachsund. I also never said that thered be unisex penal colonies. My opponent is just making assumptions and trying to twist them to his benefit; I never stated whether there would be unisex colonies or not, and this issue wasnt addressed earlier, therefor I shouldnt have to debate it, as I have no time to.
His case is absolutely ludicrous. He says there will be huge financial crises and layoffs, but provides NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO SUPPORT THIS. This argument is asinine; Bill Gates isnt going to lose his fortune by investing in private prisons that would be abolished. Abolishing prisons wont destroy the economy; in fact, I wager flooding the economy with over 2 million prisoners (in the US) looking for jobs would actually hurt the economy. You cant just assume that there will be jobs waiting for these millions of people, and that they will stimulate the economy; they cant. Terrorists cant terrorize the outside if theyre under Mr. Pigs supervision in the penal colonies. He literally says reform the system to just give convicts fines, or community service; you CANT DO THIS. TED BUNDY WOULD KILL PEOPLE WHILE PICKING UP TRASH ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. YOU CAN NOT RELEASE VIOLENT CRIMINALS INTO THE STREETS WITH NO PUNISHMENT, THIS HURTS SOCIETY.
Thus, I urge an aff ballot because Im the only one in this round who actually does anything; my proposal works, both in the past and in the status quo; see Australia and San Pedro Prison in Bolivia. My opponents points, Ive proven, are moot, simply because they provide no bases or are simply counterintuitive and just agree with what Ive said.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 25, 2015 09:16:09PM EST by Chase Hutchinson
|Category||Jarrid Pantel||Andrew Seo|
|Use of evidence:||2.3||3|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.3||3.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||2.3||5|
|Identification of key points:||3||4|
|Comments:||I admire your ambition for running a case such as this that may sound a little silly upon first hearing it and being willing to stick with it. However, I think there are fundamental problems with your case. It never became a key issue, but I don't think you ever proved that "there is no difference between videogames and the real world." You even undercut this argument when you said that there are no super criminals like Two Face in the real world making me think there is in fact is a difference between videogames and the real world. Your opponent's argument about how videogames are programs of expected events was more compelling than anything that you said. I didn't evaluate this in the round as they don't go for it but I think the arguments they are going for could be particularly devastating. You say that the resolution makes no distinction between what house we are talking about which I suppose is true, it is up to us to interrupt what the resolution means. However, I think you draw the distinction when you talk about both your own house and Arkham City. I never get the impression that the house you reside in is almost identical to the world of Arkham City.
The other argument that becomes tough is when you discuss whether your penal colony is actually a prison. Your opponent didn't make this a round defining issue but they did make several points that become tough for you to answer about prisons being places to punish/confine people which your plan does. However, even if I say that sure, your penal colony isn't a prison and you can argue for it you had to spend far too much time justifying your ability just to compete in the round. This is a problem I had with most of your arguments in that you seem to be focusing on things that only mean you can compete but not necessarily win.
I don't see where you gain very much offense. Especially when you make the comment where you say you don't have to be humane. If you want to introduce some other moral calculus for how we should determine our actions that could be a strategy but it makes it tough to vote for you when you say that it is essentially okay to shoot people.
At one point you criticized your opponent for not bringing up statistics about recidivism which is tough because a. you don't provide anything that I heard that was a statistical analysis about penal colonies stopping recidivism b. I don't see how you respond to claims that cutting down on mandatory minimums would help with things like low level drug offenses. You really could have worked on being more responsive to their arguments as I think they are correct in saying that you are committing a straw man fallacy by minimizing their argument to just letting prisoners walk free on the streets. This also seemingly puts you in a double bind when you talk about how we don't want serial killers like Ted Bundy walking around on the streets killing people but we should put him in a city with no supervision to roam the streets potentially killing people. It makes it very difficult for me to vote for you and I feel I have to do a lot of work for you to give you sufficient offense.
Your response to the increased instances of rape, murder, and bullying by saying it's non-unique is not sufficient. You don't respond to the idea that they are saying more of these harmful things will take place without supervision. It is not compelling to say "well they happen anyway" as your opponent agrees they do but will happen on a greater scale if there are no guards. It makes it so there seems to be a perceived risk that this could happen more so in colonies than elsewhere. Even if there wasn't that risk, I don't know why penal colonies make anything better when it comes to this since it happens anyways.
You refer to australia as a reason for penal colonies. I don't know if this is the best model as people did end up killing a large portion of each other without supervision as well as natives. Your opponent never brings this up but you should be ready to respond to these types of arguments.
In short, I think you are a good speaker when delivering your points but you seem to spend a lot of time on things that aren't advantageous to you. This is troubling when you don't respond to key issues which I will outline below. I think you need to think through whether this strategy is something that you are really going for in the right ways and about whether you have sufficient offense that you extend to win the round beyond Mr. Pig being adorable/incorruptible.
|You can look to some of the things that I think could have been said by you in response to your opponents case but I think you do a good job of being responsive. I really thought you could have explained more about how a video game is not the best example as this would have been a takeout for essentially a large part of what they used to justify their case.
I think you have a good turn on their case (or at least one that functions as one) when you say there is a greater risk of rape, murder, and bullying in penal colonies which they don't give a good answer to.
I think your abolishment of mandatory minimums is a good way to generate some offense for your side. However, I think when you talk about abolishing laws criminalizing drugs, guns, sex, and alcohol you begin to open yourself up to some very dangerous arguments that people will call you out on. This is something that you don't phrase as an advocacy per se but does seem to be something that you float out there as an idea that I think people could turn against you.
Your example of military prisons was used well but I do think they are right in saying that you create torturous conditions. I think that you need a better answer to this in order for me to give it as much weight as you want to when you phrase it like a last resort terminal voting issue if all else fails.
The econ disad seems a little underdeveloped. You just assert econ collapse will happen as pepole invest in prisons but people invest in lots of other things too. Does that mean that the whole economy collapses and that people are incapable of recovering? Are there no safe guards in place? These are questions you need to answer and make me as a judge value this disad more.
All in all, I think you did a good job. I would have liked for you to go way harder for reform solving through better prison conditions. I encourage you to look to examples like Norway as they are typically used because of how they are rather humane in how they hold people.
The decision is for the Opposition: Andrew Seo
Reason for Decision:
I evaluate this debate on 2 levels.
1. Is the proposition doing a topical action by creating a penal colony? (Topicality)
I don't feel comfortable voting against the proposition because the opposition did largely concede the arguments about a prison having to be some sort of vessel which while not entirely clear does seem to be different from a penal colony/city. I think if the opposition had made arguments sooner about how a prison is defined by it confining people and punishing them I would have voted here. I do think they are brought up too late in the round for the proposition to respond to them making them too new for me to vote on them. However, if you had brought them up sooner I would have given them a lot of weight because the proposition does seem to be toeing a fine line on what a prison is.
2. What happens in a world of the proposition versus the opposition? (net benefits/case proper)
This is where I really lost the proposition. You say that it might reduce overcrowding at one point but that is all I really have. You briefly mentioned how it would allow for a better chance at rehab but that seems to be undercut by there being no supervision, something you don't respond to. What really complicates things is that the proposition says there are civil rights abuses that happen in prison mostly on behalf on the government and guards. However, when the opposition says there could be more abuses in unsupervised penal colonies the proposition says this is non-unique, leading me to believe you consider this inevitable anyways. I then am not sure what you hope to solve for especially when you later say you don't have to be humane. I think the arguments the opposition makes that win the round are when they say with no people monitoring the penal colonites people will likely harm each other more. There seems to be no real response to this except a reiteration of the fact that this will happen anyways. I consider the risk of increased rape, murder, bullying, and general violence to be a reason to vote opposition to ensure that doesn't happen. The one thing that could have made my decision complicated is that at least it isn't like guatanamo bay where the government tortures you. If the proposition had articulated more that violence on behalf of the state is uniquely worse I could have given that some weight. Besides that, I see overwhelming offense that the opposition reads about not allowing for violence in penal colonies, marginally making prisons better by abolishing mandatory minimums and other reforms while the proposition never sufficiently shows how they are able to compete with these arguments.