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: Lucas Hinds (Outschool Online - Intermediate) vs. Opposition: Ian Chung (Vestal Middle School)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.

  • Lucas Hinds
    Lucas Hinds

    Ian Chung
    Ian Chung
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at June 2, 2020 02:57:40AM EST by Lucas Hinds



    Mic - 01/27/15

    Posted at June 2, 2020 02:55:41PM EST by Ian Chung



    Posted at June 3, 2020 11:40:19PM EST by Lucas Hinds



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at June 4, 2020 12:30:29PM EST by Ian Chung



    Posted at June 5, 2020 09:17:15PM EST by Lucas Hinds



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at June 7, 2020 09:41:01AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Lucas Hinds Ian Chung
    Use of evidence: 4.4 4.8
    Delivery skill: 4.6 5.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.8 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.6 4.5
    Identification of key points: 4.5 5.1
    Comments: I like how your propose an alternative to the prison system. I think your argument would be better served by providing a definition of what a "prison" is so you can prove that your alternative is not a prison. However, you seem to indicate that prisons would still exist in your opening speech, which isn't abolishing prisons. Your opening speech would be better if you provided more sources and evidence to back up your arguments. I also think you spend a little too much time providing a road map to your speech. I would also suggest creating bigger impacts as to why prisons are bad instead of taking it as an assumption.

    Nice job responding to your opponent's arguments. Again, I wish you provided evidence for your arguments to back up your points. I don't think you can agree with your opponent's definition of "abolish" since your opening speech isn't advocating to get entirely rid of all prisons. Even in this speech you mention Sweden's system as a "prison system," which means you aren't defending an abolition of prisons as much as you're defending a reform of prisons. You need to do a better job at explaining why this is an affirmation of the resolution.
    Great job starting off by attacking the definition of the prison system according to the proposition team. Good job defining the term "proposition" and explaining why that isn't a defense of the resolution. I wish you impacted that out more. Ie why should I vote for you if you prove that the proposition doesn't defend the resolution. Good use of evidence for your speeches. I like how you craft an alternative to include some of the proposition's solution. I think you could do a better job a distinguishing between the two alternatives. Your sequencing argument is a good one but I think could probably be explained a bit better.

    Make sure you use all your speech time. When you only have two speeches to your opponent's three you need to take advantage of your longer speech times. You could also do a better job at framing the debate and the ballot instead of just answering each individual arguments. Good job returning to your argument that abolition isn't the same thing as reforming or changing the prison system. I would suggest extending your evidence from your opening speech instead of just making your arguments again.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Ian Chung

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the opposition since I don't think the proposition doesn't defend the abolition of prisons. Even in the proposition's closing speech, he says we should change from a closed prison system to an open prison system. That is still a prison system, which means the proposition doesn't defend entirely getting rid of the prison system. The opposition needs to provide a different definition of the term "abolition" to prove that it affirms the topic, otherwise the opposition wins that the prop doesn't defend that we should entirely get rid of prisons, which results in an opposition ballot. Good job to both sides. This was a good debate. Congrats to you both for making it to semifinals!

    1 Comment

    Good match. Good luck in the finals - Lucas Hinds on June 7, 2020 at 12:56PM EST

    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: