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: Athena Matin-aw (University of San Jose-Recoletos) vs. Opposition: Chris Mok (Unaffiliated)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Athena Matin-aw
    Athena Matin-aw

    Chris Mok
    Chris Mok
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at June 1, 2020 11:59:13PM EST by Athena Matin-aw



    Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retributive Justice. 2014.

    James McGuire. 2018. Understanding prison violence: a rapid evidence assessment. Liverpool University.

    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Addressing the Global Prison Crisis.

    Amy Walker. 2019. Prison assaults and self-harm rise to record levels. The Guardian.

    Equal Justice Initiative. Prison Conditions.

    Ashley Nellis, PhD. 2016. The Sentencing Project.

    BBC News. 2019. Data leak reveals how China 'brainwashes' Uighurs in prison camps.

    Committee to Protect Journalists. 2019. China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt are world’s worst jailers of journalists.

    Department of Justice, Canada. Restorative Justice.

    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment. 2007.

    Posted at June 2, 2020 08:18:33PM EST by Chris Mok



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at June 3, 2020 12:09:39PM EST by Athena Matin-aw



    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment. 2007.

    Prison Conditions and Recidivism. 2011.

    Sentencing Matters- Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence. Sentencing Advisory Council. 2011.

    Study suggests imprisonment does not deter future crime. 2019.

    Procedural Justice for Victims and
    Offenders?: Exploring Restorative Justice Processes in Australia and the US. Justice Quarterly. 2015.

    Thank you!

    Posted at June 4, 2020 11:51:47PM EST by Chris Mok



    Posted at June 5, 2020 11:55:52AM EST by Athena Matin-aw



    Thank you for everything :)


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at June 7, 2020 09:15:09AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Athena Matin-aw Chris Mok
    Use of evidence: 5.5 3.3
    Delivery skill: 4.4 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.9 4.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.1 4.7
    Identification of key points: 5.3 4.6
    Comments: I would start your speech by framing the topic and the resolution. You seem to start your opening speech out mid-thought. Your clarity is pretty good given your speed. I also like how you both reference sources within your speech as well as provide the links in the text box. You have a good critique of the prison system. I think you could do better at providing an alternative or explain what happens after the abolition of prison. You do really good on the impact level of the debate.

    Great job extending evidence from your opening speech and explaining how those solutions work better. I would point out that your opponent doesn't respond to your evidence and that it gets conceded. Great job weighing the impacts of your arguments against your opponent. I think you could do a better job at being clear on which of the opposition's arguments you're answering when. Structure your speech a little better.
    Good job framing the debate at the start of your speech. I wish you provided sources in the text box so I can see where your evidence comes from. Ie when you explain why jails are justified and aren't a violation of human rights it would have been good to attach a cite to that claim. You need to do a better job explain why upholding the social contract is more important than abusing people in jail, which will cause repeat offenses after people are let out of jail. I would also suggest starting with your offense and then going on to answering your opponent's arguments and providing defense. Your jail = deterrence argument really needs evidence to back up that claim since the proposition has evidence saying the opposite. I understand your looting/rioting example, but you still need a source to back up your conclusion to that end.

    Make sure to use all your speech time. In this format, the opposition only has two speeches so the longer speeches is really essential to combating that issue and ensuring you have arguments that your opponent doesn't answer. You're very good at answering your opponent's arguments and providing historical examples. However, you need to do a better job at framing the impacts and weighing them against each other. Be more offensive in your speech instead of continually prioritizing your defense. I wish your reform prison counter-plan was presented in your opening opposition speech. Again, you need evidence for the effectiveness of jails to deter crime.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Athena Matin-aw

    Reason for Decision:

    I vote for the proposition side because Athena does a better job at weighing the impacts. In short, she wins that the human rights abuses that happen in jails (which unfairly targets minorities) outweighs the risk of people committing crime (even if jails serve as a deterrent). However, I don't think that the opposition wins that jails actually create an effective form of deterrence since the proposition provides more evidence demonstrating why jails don't work as a form of deterrence, and that jails ultimately cause people to commit more crimes when they're released because of the way they were treated while in jail. As a result, I don't think reforming prisons will be an effective solution since the opposition doesn't win a reason for why we need to keep prisons, given the harms and abuses that they cause. Overall, I think this was a great debate. The opposition just needs to do a better job at framing their offense and providing evidence (not just examples) for their arguments. Great job to both of you making it to semifinals!

    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: