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: Abigail Northcutt (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Amanda Gerstman (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

  • Abigail Northcutt
    Abigail Northcutt
    vs.



    Amanda Gerstman
    Amanda Gerstman
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 10:51:33PM EST by Abigail Northcutt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 06:51:13PM EST by Amanda Gerstman

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

    ~sorry about weird format i used iMovie this round to try it out.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 01:37:12AM EST by Abigail Northcutt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 07:30:58PM EST by Amanda Gerstman

    Citations

    Show

    http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/repara29c.htm
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/04/30/how-much-is-trillion-dollars-what-trillion-can-buy/

    Posted at October 16, 2015 04:56:18PM EST by Abigail Northcutt

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 16, 2015 08:34:30PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Abigail Northcutt Amanda Gerstman
    Use of evidence: 2.5 3
    Delivery skill: 4 4.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 3.9
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.9 4
    Identification of key points: 4 3.5
    Comments: You should cite evidence in the citation section. Also when you define your terms I would like you to use a source to show why those definitions are predictable and within the literature base. I like your arguments about how children etc still feel the negative effects of slavery in the recent past. You do good at outlining your harms. However, you need to do better at explaining why reparations would solve these harms otherwise I'm not sure why reparations are the answer. How will they make up for the past injustices?

    Again, I would love sources for the arguments you assert. I like your distinction between compensatory justice versus distributive justice. I also think you deal with your opponents defensive arguments too defensively. You should emphasize that in the world of no CP that the opposition is advocating the SQ and more clearly point out that doing nothing is not acceptable.

    You should be collapsing to fewer arguments in this speech and going into more depth. You also need to make sure you spend more time answering the one offensive argument the opposition is making (education opportunity cost).
    Very fancy with your name slide. Just because reparations would have to be paid to more people doesn't mean we shouldn't pay reparations to African Americans. Same with politicians laughing at the argument. Why are reparations bad? Not just not liked? I'm not a fan of your welfare = reparation argument. I think it borderlines on racist. You should use more cites to back up your points than you do. In short, you have a lot of defense but not much offense. Evidence for suffering no longer exists would be useful.

    You really should use all your time in your final speech. The extra time is your advantage as the opposition. Attacking her lack of cites is good. However, you don't have so many cites either in your first speech. Your opportunity cost argument seems new in this speech and would have been much better in your first speech in order to extend into this speech. You also should impact out why education is more important than just reparations.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Abigail Northcutt

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition needed to answer the opportunity cost / education trade-off argument that the opposition made in her last speech. While the argument is semi-new, when I look back, there are hints of it in the opposition opening speech. If the prop made the argument in the closing that the education argument was new I would probably not evaluate it. However, even easier than that, the prop needed to weigh the impacts that you're extending in your last speech against the education argument the opposition is making. Your closing speech can't just restate your opening impacts without relating it to the impacts the opposition is talking about in her closing. The prop should also frame the round in the last speech that explains to me what I get each way (world of reparations versus world of SQ education, which is already failing).

    Opp, you should present your trade-off argument with evidence in your first speech and structure it more explicitly instead of bringing it up in your second speech. That would allow you to get into more depth and get your speaker points up as a result as well.


    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