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: Nanami Abematsu (Shorin Global) vs. Opposition: Emily Thayer (Wood River High School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Nanami Abematsu
    Nanami Abematsu

    Emily  Thayer
    Emily Thayer
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 20, 2015 11:56:45PM EST by Nanami Abematsu



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at April 21, 2015 09:43:20PM EST by Emily Thayer



    Posted at April 23, 2015 05:59:51AM EST by Nanami Abematsu



    Finland prison reconstruct'%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89+%E5%88%91%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80'


    2014 13BILLION

    Posted at April 24, 2015 01:03:20AM EST by Emily Thayer


    Show,29307, 1989083_2137374,00.html

    Posted at April 25, 2015 12:32:18AM EST by Nanami Abematsu



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at April 26, 2015 06:35:49PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Nanami Abematsu Emily Thayer
    Use of evidence: 3.2 4.1
    Delivery skill: 4.1 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: Good opening contention in regards to health and care for inmates. You should provide the sources to your citations in the cite box though so they can be looked at by your opponent. You should go into more depth on your argument on how prisons increase crime. Very good job speaking in English!

    Good job at responding to the Finland prison argument. I think you should have responded to your opponent's definition of the word "abolish" since if you don't you end up having to defend more than you want to. Good job with evidence comparison.

    A lot of your arguments in your last speech (money and abuse) are answered by the CP that decreases the number of prisons so the savings happen already. You need to have a clearer defense of why reforming prisons wouldn't work.
    I like how you define the term "abolish" at the start of your speech. Good job at providing cites for your speech. You should make them look better though (author name, qualifications, etc). I think your CP to decrease the number of prisons and reforming them is a good strategy at the onset. I think you could spend more time developing the need for prisons though. I think you also could do a better job at specifying what kind of reforms would take place. Good job on the specific Finland response.

    "What the guards should be doing and what they are doing" is an argument that helps the proposition side more since it's potentially an argument for why reform won't solve since even if they're paid more they could still want more. Again, I think your CP would be better if you defined the reforms from the onset. I like how you end your speech with clear voters.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Emily Thayer

    Reason for Decision:

    I think the CP solves for the majority of the proposition's impacts since by reducing the number of prisons and reforming them via the Norway model will save money and cut down the amount of prison abuse. In addition, the prop doesn't answer the statistics about a 51% drop of violent crime after the use of prisons. The proposition needs to spend more time proving why reforming prisons wouldn't work. There's a lot of empirical evidence in this regards that the prop should be making use of. In the end, because the proposition doesn't dispute the definition of "abolition" or "prison" the prop is left defending getting rid of all types of prison systems (including military prisons), which the opposition proves are useful for detaining terrorists and other violent offenders (ie the "worst of the worst"). If the proposition disputed the definitions or proved why detaining terrorists is a bad idea (Gitmo is a good example of why) it would probably have swayed me. However, since those portions of the debate are disputed I end up voting for the opposition. Good debate by both sides. I really enjoyed watching it!

    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: