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: Paul H. Lim (NEI Education) vs. Opposition: Tania Rahman (Binghamton University)

Judge: Christopher Kozak (Rutgers University)

Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished

  • Paul H. Lim
    Paul H. Lim

    Tania Rahman
    Tania Rahman
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at April 28, 2015 12:46:42AM EST by Paul H. Lim



    Posted at April 29, 2015 02:10:17AM EST by Tania Rahman




    Posted at April 30, 2015 01:57:23AM EST by Paul H. Lim



    Posted at May 1, 2015 02:38:31AM EST by Tania Rahman



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at May 2, 2015 02:43:20AM EST by Paul H. Lim




    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at May 3, 2015 10:34:18PM EST by Christopher Kozak

    Category Paul H. Lim Tania Rahman
    Use of evidence: 6 6
    Delivery skill: 6 6
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5
    Identification of key points: 5.5 5.5
    Comments: I put all my comments in the RFD I put all my comments in the RFD

    The decision is for the Opposition: Tania Rahman

    Reason for Decision:

    I think that the Affs discussion of the conception of punishment and the paradigm shift that his advocacy would allow for should have been the focus of the AC and not saved for the last speech. I thought the casual determinism stuff was not smart and only shifted the focused off of what I thought were the Affs strongest points. I think that the negative was ahead on the definitions debate and believe its true that holding someone against their will for forced rehabilitation can not be punishment under certain circumstances. The aff spends most of their time defending their own definition and not enough time attacking the negatives.

    Just a side note on definitions debates: both teams were being extremely defensive on this level of the debate that made a decision slightly difficult. For me as a judge, definitions debates are a matter of competing interpretations. Both teams need to spend more time articulating how their definition or interpretation of the resolution provides the best form of clash and education compared to their opponents definition.

    I end up voting negative because I dont think that the aff has an advantage to prison abolitions when I believe that rehabilitation centers could be considered a kind of prison.

    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: