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: Arthur Park (Leaders Academy) vs. Opposition: Lucas Hinds (Outschool Online - Intermediate)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Resolved: The United Nation should require countries to uniformly enact substantial criminal justice reform in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.

  • Arthur Park
    Arthur Park

    Lucas Hinds
    Lucas Hinds
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at July 6, 2020 11:31:03PM EST by Arthur Park



    Posted at July 8, 2020 12:54:49AM EST by Lucas Hinds



    Debate Speech Transcripts

    Posted at July 8, 2020 11:38:40PM EST by Arthur Park



    Posted at July 10, 2020 12:59:27AM EST by Lucas Hinds



    Binghamton Debate Bearcat Open W2
    Lucas Hinds Oppistion Constructive Citations Tuesday 7/07/20

    Fact check: Police killed more unarmed Black men in 2019 than conservative activist claimed

    By: Molly Stellino
    June 24, 2020

    The Myth of Systemic Police Racism: Hold officers accountable who use excessive force. But there's no evidence of widespread racial bias.

    By Heather MacDonald
    June 2, 2020

    Debate Speech Transcripts (Proposition)

    Binghamton Debate Bearcat Open W2
    Lucas Hinds Oppistion Closing
    Citations Thursday 7/09/20

    Ten Years of Criminal Justice Reform in Texas
    August 1, 2017

    Debate Speech Transcripts (Lucas Hinds Oppistion)

    Posted at July 11, 2020 03:27:32AM EST by Arthur Park




    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at July 12, 2020 09:50:09AM EST by David Kane

    Category Arthur Park Lucas Hinds
    Use of evidence: 2 4.5
    Delivery skill: 3 4
    Coherence of arguments: 2 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 0.1 3
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: I understand that in other formats teams collaborate with each other to prepare speeches, but the ground rules for this event were different.

    That said, the low speaker points reflect my concerns about your rebuttal as I have described in the decision.
    Thank you for the debate.

    You did a good job keeping your cool in what could have really gotten out of hand.

    The transcript links were expired when I went to look at them, but I wonder if maybe the 31st - 21st confusion came from reading the transcript vs listening to your opponent.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Lucas Hinds

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition made a convincing argument that the proposition's constructive was not independent. I found the proposition's argument that the collaborative work occurred before registration unsatisfying. Clearly your team was practicing this specific topic at the time you did because it had been announced already. ( I know I received my first notice about it on June 17th ) If your team was aware enough of the tournament to prepare the topic, then your team would also have had the opportunity to see the rules for the event. If the collaboration had occurred before the announcement of the tournament (say you had a topic on a similar topic in some other event in the past ) that would be one thing, but that does not appear to be the case here.

    Conversely, the proposition makes 3 separate accusations of lying about the opposition, and a "pattern of deceit". I found these to be unpersuasive. By definition, a lie must be "intentionally false."

    * The first assertion of a lie concerns the date of "June 31st". I re-listened to the statement, and I heard June 21st. I believe this is simply a case of mishearing.

    * The second assertion of a lie concerns the evidence of 25 unarmed black men being killed, and that you did not find them. I found the following on the first evidence link from the opposition that I checked, "Mapping Police Violence, a crowdsourced database that includes deaths by vehicle, tasering or beating in addition to shootings, estimates 25 police killings of unarmed Black men in 2019."

    * The third assertion of a lie is that he cannot rebut your reforms because you gave no reforms. This is not a lie. It is a critique that you've structured your argument is such an abstract way that the there is no substance to rebut. Characterizing your opponent's critique in this way as a lie in inappropriate. While it is true you define areas where you propose reform taking place, no description about what these reforms is ever articulated.

    Lastly, the proposition then says that he is subject to "character assassinations without proof." I did not hear anything from the opposition questioning the character of the proposition. The opposition made an argument that the rules were not followed. The assertion was backed up with evidence. The opposition played 2 nearly verbatim constructive speeches from different debaters.

    1 Comment

    Thank you for taking time out of your day to judge this debate Mr.Kane. - Lucas Hinds on July 12, 2020 at 11:48AM 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: