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: Kim-Ha Nguyen (PHT) vs. Opposition: Zoella Lin (Lexington High School)

Judge: becca steiner (University of Georgia)

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

  • Kim-Ha Nguyen
    Kim-Ha Nguyen
    vs.



    Zoella Lin
    Zoella Lin
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at June 1, 2020 12:49:01AM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at June 2, 2020 11:56:36PM EST by Zoella Lin

    Citations

    Show

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mLZ4tldcYvN-R2t66V3CK4WbSk7wiKri/view?usp=sharing

    Posted at June 3, 2020 10:48:47PM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at June 5, 2020 11:59:18AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at June 6, 2020 05:35:12AM EST by Kim-Ha Nguyen

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at June 6, 2020 09:55:14PM EST by becca steiner

    Category Kim-Ha Nguyen Zoella Lin
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.6
    Delivery skill: 5.1 4.9
    Coherence of arguments: 6 6
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 5.2
    Identification of key points: 6 6
    Comments: comments for the first speech:
    strengths:
    eye contact, volume, clear organization, hand gestures
    places to improve: the sources of outside research used in this speech are credible, but you should share the publish date for the information out loud too. for example, is the mother jones article from 2020? the video ended at 4:29, it sounded like you were mid-sentence. if not, try to wait to turn off the camera until finishing your last point. if you ran out of time, I would recommend getting rid of the third contention since it was the one that had the least amount of support and time.

    for the second speech
    strengths:
    volume, eye contact, hand gestures, organization, good responses to the counter proposal, good summary of your own points from speech 1
    places to improve: some of the arguments in the opponent's first speech were not addressed. for example, in speech 1 the opponent said that democrats are on track to win the US election in 2020, but deciding to abolish the prison system would give republicans a chance to win the election, and if the republicans win the election, climate change would get worse and there may be a nuclear war. these arguments were pieced together to present a negative consequence to abolishing the prison system. some possible responses you could say include: read evidence that democrats are not on track to win the US election now, you could say criminal justice reform via abolishing prisons would be more likely to help democrats than republicans, you could say climate change is inevitable, you could say that the morality of people of color disproportionately losing criminal cases and going to prison for a long time is more important the the outcome of the US election, perhaps it is too early to correctly predict the election outcome, etc. Lastly, the opponent's first speech made an argument that we need to keep prisons in place because if we let criminals out of prison then they will join terrorist organizations and commit terrorist attacks. perhaps you could explain why terrorists recruit from a variety of places besides prisons, terrorist organizations don't have sophisticated weapons, or that the rehabilitation program you propose would help deter people from joining terrorist groups.

    comments for the third speech
    strengths
    : eye contact, hand gestures, summarizing own points, clearly defining prison abolition
    places to improve: I have a clear picture of what your proposal to abolish prisons looks like and why rehabilitation would be useful after prisons are abolished, but you should spend more time comparing prison abolition to the counter proposal offered by the opposition - there were many parts to it including paying for lawyers, increasing healthcare for prisoners, providing jobs once prisoners are released, etc. lastly, the opponent spoke in both speeches about a possible negative consequence to abolishing prisons being increased risks of terrorism. do you have any responses to this point?
    comments for the first speech:
    strengths:
    evidence to support most points, good organization when addressing opponent's first speech.
    places to improve: you should read a piece of uniqueness evidence for the terror da. is risk of terror with al qaeda or isis high or low now? in addition, it is sort of unclear what the link is. you've read evidence that terrorist organizations use prisons to build recruitment efforts. wouldn't that be a reason to get rid of prisons so that terrorist groups cannot find folks in prison to recruit? you want to walk the judge through why the recruitment/networking has already begun and the terrorist groups are just waiting for those prisoners to be released. but, that does lessen the severity of the DA because it means terrorism is sort of inevitable regardless of whether prisons get abolished because the terrorists are recruiting now/have the motive/etc and its only a matter of time before one of their recruits gets let out of prison. this is explained in the overview in the second speech, but should be done in the first speech since there is no opportunity for cross-x and the judge does not have your evidence in front of them to help understand.

    for the second speech
    strengths:
    good explanation of key differences between the plan and counter plan, the overview put some of the puzzle pieces I had about the terror DA into place (see comments for first speech).
    places to improve: for me, I wouldn't mention the thing about timing at the end given the speed disparity and that I have no access to the posted rules about how much time each speech is allowed so I cannot verify. you've treated the whole debate like a policy debate perhaps because I am the judge, if that is the case you should properly "kick" the elections DA since you are choosing not to go for it in the last speech. you could improve with extending pieces of 1nc evidence "on case" by author name.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Zoella Lin

    Reason for Decision:

    This was a good debate https://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/images/smilies/smile.gif

    At the end of the debate I thought the most important points from the proposition were that the current US prison system is unfairly biased towards rich and white people as well and does not serve people with mental illnesses well either. Instead, we should abolish the system and institute new forms of rehabilitation.

    The most important points from the opposition were that we must keep prisons in place so that individuals who have already been recruited to terrorist organizations cannot be let out to help commit terrorist attacks. the opposition had a counter proposal to not abolish prisons, but institute some other reforms to the criminal justice system such as ensuring money is allocated to those who cannot afford good lawyers, increasing healthcare benefits and protections for prisoners, providing job assistance after prison, etc. another important point was that we need more prisons to lock up future dangerous white supremacists who commit crimes.

    Overall, I decided to vote for the opposition team because many of their points were not addressed by the proposition in the second and third speech, such as the arguments about terrorist groups and white supremacist groups. Above in my comments I offered some suggestions for how you could have responded. Second, I also think the proposition did a very good job summarizing your own case and what abolishing prisons means but I wish you spent more time comparing prison abolition to the counter proposal provided by the opposition team. Which reform is better?


    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:

    PHP MySQL SUIT