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 09:48:13PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at June 2, 2020 11:48:56PM EST by Lucas Hinds
Posted at June 3, 2020 03:27:58PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
Posted at June 4, 2020 11:49:47PM EST by Lucas Hinds
The Society interview
By: Erwin James
Wed 26 Nov 2014
Sweden's Remarkable Prison System Has Done What the U.S. Won't Even Consider
By Zeeshan Aleem
Jan. 27, 2015
Binghamton Speech and Debate
Posted at June 5, 2020 12:35:42PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at June 7, 2020 10:22:53AM EST by Ian Miller
|Category||Imogen Kurtz||Lucas Hinds|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||4.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.6||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.6||4.9|
|Identification of key points:||4.9||4.8|
|Comments:||Good speeches - but I think that you should argue that some of your points in the first speech are intrinsic flaws in the prison system that the Swedish system would not solve.||You had good arguments throughout this debate. I like your use and analysis of evidence. I don't think you should spend much time refuting this "you didn't use all your speech time" argument because no judge will ever consider it.|
The decision is for the Opposition: Lucas Hinds
Reason for Decision:
I ended up voting for the opposition in this debate because both sides agreed that the Swedish system was better and the opposition wins that the Swedish system is a prison.
The proposition changes their definition of prison from "or where they are held awaiting trial" to "and where they are held awaiting trial". The opposition also made an argument that the Guardian source (used by the proposition) says that the Swedish system is indeed a prison. After viewing this source, I aqree.
Based on this, and the fact that both teams agree on the rehabilitation benefits of the aforementioned system, I voted for the opposition.
I think that the proposition should have gotten less bogged down in definitions and instead tried to argue that certain aspects of the Swedish system are bad (e.g. not being able to see one's family or work in a meaningful way during their sentence). This would be more persuasive to me.