Judge: Randal Horobik (Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama)
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 27, 2015 08:43:56PM EST by David O'Neill
citation one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95580
citation two: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_iandc_complex.pdf
citation three: http://www.dys.ohio.gov/DNN/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6qSSPqVzbsA%3d&tabid=225&mid=1100
Posted at April 29, 2015 12:40:53AM EST by Bobby Good
Posted at April 29, 2015 04:34:33PM EST by David O'Neill
"kids for Cash" program:
Stanley Karnow "In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines"
Posted at May 1, 2015 03:17:17AM EST by Bobby Good
Posted at May 1, 2015 02:21:56PM EST by David O'Neill
Enron-collapsed-no societal collapse.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 3, 2015 04:49:39AM EST by Randal Horobik
|Category||David O'Neill||Bobby Good|
|Use of evidence:||3.9||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||3.8|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4.2|
|Identification of key points:||3.8||3.6|
|Comments:||Aloha (again) David!
My biggest issue with this debate from your standpoint was your allocation of time. Both the constructive and first rebuttal sounded like you were just talking when the camera shut off and led me to think there was additional stuff left unsaid in both speeches. It was just an awkward ending to both of them.
Work to quantify things a little more. So there's this culture of dehumanization in prisons, but what does that mean? What does it do to society? How many guards commit suicide each year because they're in contact with the culture? What would a world without prisons look like by comparison? Go deeper than the buzzword and really paint a picture for me.
I can tell you've got a solid debate background, but I'm not sure I caught you at your best in this debate.
I liked your initial structure, but please tighten up the link/brink stories. It may have been the unlinked WSJ card that was discussed, but I was missing that key card that indicated that something on the order of shuttering the prison industry would launch us off the cliff to chaos.
I would also budget your time better and give a little more thought to your strategy. You did some great work putting pieces into play in your constructive, but I'm not sure the route you chose in the back half of the debate was the most efficient usage of them. Personally I would have loved to hear the abandoned counter plan carried through, especially after it got dropped.
Watch your evidence. The UN report, as I read it, was at best tangental to the argument you were using it for. The Global Research links actually appeared to talk against your position -- the one outright contradicts your Guardian ev regarding whether or not prisons cut crime and both have some pretty damning things to say about the prison industry and its effects. Unlike a physical debate where you hand me the specific card and I read your cutting of it, in an online debate when you link a big article, I have to skim all of it to find your specific segment, and that means I get a feel for the full tone of it, and in this case that worked against you.
The decision is for the Proposition: David O'Neill
Reason for Decision:
I am signing for Prop -- while both sides have some clear flaws in this debate, in the end there's just more that bugs me about the Opp side that prevents me from signing there with a clear conscience:
1. The admission that the Opp constructive was recycled and non-specific to the Prop case certainly didn't help your aura. While I appreciate the honesty of that admission, it still has some negative effect.
2. The evidence issues. I can't find the $2.1 billion figure. The WSJ card that seems key to the scenario stories isn't linked. The Global Research articles are pretty anti-prison in tone and the UN report isn't specific to what we're told it says (at least in the way I read it here in my armchair). I don't know if this is all a byproduct of No. 1 or not.
3. The scenarios do seem a little loose in the link-brink elements, and that makes it hard to pull the trigger on any of them. How much does the risk of terror or war increase? How do you counter Prop's challenge that $2.1 billion isn't enough to cause collapse?
This isn't to say I'm a huge fan of the Prop position in this debate either, largely due to a lack of impacts. Prop does take a nice swing back at the framework talking about how we can't value economics above moral issues, but could have followed this up with a deeper discussion about what those moral issues are and the ramifications of them. I also gave Prop some mileage for his first rebuttal turn of the economics argument demonstrating rationale for why prisons need abolished. Again though, this should have been hammered stronger in the final rebuttal.
Even if I give the Opp the utilitarian framework he asks for, I think the dehumanization spoken of on the Prop side in the status quo sways me over the unknown likelihood of the war/terror/potential loss of life scenarios. That said, I don't think the framework is a necessary gimme due to the morals-over-economics that we received in the 1AR.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) for the debate! My apologies for getting this posted late, but my previous attempts froze and vanished (maybe I was being too long-winded with my remarks...)
Best of luck to both of you in debate and in life!