Judge: Ian Miller (University of Oklahoma)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at June 1, 2020 12:33:34PM EST by Ian Chung
National Institute of Justice, "Recidivism Is a Core Criminal Justice Concern," October 2, 2008, nij.ojp.gov:
Posted at June 3, 2020 05:38:46AM EST by Amanda Gonzalez
Posted at June 3, 2020 11:46:01AM EST by Ian Chung
Posted at June 4, 2020 08:56:50PM EST by Amanda Gonzalez
Posted at June 5, 2020 12:34:25PM EST by Ian Chung
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 5, 2020 01:38:05PM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Ian Chung||Amanda Gonzalez|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.8||4.7|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.9||4.3|
|Identification of key points:||4.8||4.6|
|Comments:||Great speeches - you had a really clear vision of the round which helped your persuasion. I think it could be more effective to find more moral instead of economic reasons why abolition would help minority communities.||You were a great speaker and I liked the counterplan. In the future I would alter your focus of the round to include more reasons why the counterplan would be net-better than prison abolition, or why prison abolition would exacerbate the social problems presented.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Ian Chung
Reason for Decision:
I voted for the proposition because prison abolition would solve recidivism at least as well as the counterplan (re-education similar to norway's system), while also putting more convicts back into society, which benefits minority communities more.
I think that the counterplan is good at solving the issues that were brought up, however it does not provide any net benefit over prison abolition. The only arguments at the end of the debate against prison abolition were fundamentally defensive - that abolition is impractical or infeasible. I think that the opposition should go one step further and prove that abolition would make the world worse for minority communities. Absent a compelling argument for that, it is harder for me to vote for the counterplan over the proposition.
I ended up finding the proposition's argument about a transition period compelling and sufficient to show that abolition would work somewhat effectively. I think that the opposition would be in a better position if they brought their impracticality arguments earlier in the debate and spent more time explaining why abolition would harm minority communities.