Judge: Jesse Meyer (Lincoln 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 28, 2015 05:23:11PM EST by David O'Neill
Posted at April 30, 2015 09:52:14AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 30, 2015 09:36:35PM EST by David O'Neill
Farmer V. Brennan
Saddams Abolition written by Jeremy Scahill:
Further reading on the deleterious effects of abolition in Saddams Iraq:
Posted at May 2, 2015 01:43:42AM EST by Patrick Schroeder
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 3, 2015 02:10:53AM EST by Jesse Meyer
|Category||Patrick Schroeder||David O'Neill|
|Use of evidence:||1.1||2.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||1||3.3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||3.4|
|Identification of key points:||3.2||3.2|
|Comments:||Ummmm, is this a performance debate? If it is, I dig it, but you got to give me a topic hook. I'm confused.
George H.W. Bush was the father not the son... Heard tons on how W was behind 9/11 but never his father.
Ok, I get how this could be used, but I don't get it in this? Do you think this is a joke, because there are students who wanted to be in this round but missed on points. If you didn't want to do this, you could have resigned and let someone who wanted to speak do so.
I am good with you using conspiracy theories. I'm open minded. But I need the hook.
|Oh, he affirmed. Just not in any traditional way.
Framework- I like how you use a simple framework structure. You could have downloaded any fw file from online but you went simple.
I don't see how the prison rape story works for the opp.
Make the discourse argument bigger.
Don't just say he has holes, point them out.
I didn't get you were talking about the Prison Rape Elimination Act until the final speech. Now it makes sense.
The binding to governments is kind of a cool spin on his case.
The decision is for the Opposition: David O'Neill
Reason for Decision:
For both of you, don't take this the wrong way, but this round ranks in the top 10 most un-engaged rounds I've ever judged. I'm sure you both are very smart people but there was a lack of structure, clash, and strat in this round which make is messy to judge.
Proposition- If you strat or style is to go for the critical or pro-formative aspect of debate, I can get on board. But what I saw was neither. There was no topic hook, you kept making vague links to conspiracy theories without any analysis, it felt like you were rambling, and most of all, you didn't look like you bought it. Half the time you looked like you didn't want to be doing this. If this is your style, you can feel free to message me and ask for a more detailed answer on how I'd have structured it, but the way it was presented, it didn't work. I also thought the rifleman's creed was clever, but it served no purpose in this round. It could have been used to refer to a collective of the US and it's people rather than a government body which could have worked but it was never played up.
Opposition- I was very unclear on why I should vote for you until the last speech. I still am. I didn't know you were talking about the PREA until the last speech. You talked about discourse matters, which I ran all the time in college with great success, but it never comes into play (or at least not in a meaningful way until the end).
So in the end, I'm left at worst than two ships passing in the night. At least there, both sides talk about why they affirm or negate the topic with little engagement with the topic. But in this debate, neither ship is passing anywhere. On the pro, the ship seems to have hit a reef and is sinking and on the opp, the ship sailed into a fog bank and I can't see it at times. Thus I vote for the opposition as this is the most well constructed argument in the round that I can see a topic link to.
If either of you want comments more specific, you can feel free to message me. I will try to help.