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: Emanuel Kamali (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Molly Witzmann (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Emanuel Kamali
    Emanuel Kamali
    vs.



    Molly Witzmann
    Molly Witzmann
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 05:54:22PM EST by Emanuel Kamali

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/reparations-what-white-people-need-to-know/
    http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html

    Bayo Holsey. "Owning Up to the Past?: African slave traders and the hazards of discourse." Transition 105.1 (2011): 74-87. Project MUSE. Web. 29 Sep. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.


    http://www.jstor.org.proxy.binghamton.edu/stable/pdf/10.5323/jafriamerhist.97.1-2.0001.pdf?acceptTC=true

    Martha Biondi. "The Rise of the Reparations Movement." Radical History Review 87.1 (2003): 5-18. Project MUSE. Web. 20 Sep. 2015.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 01:42:39AM EST by Molly Witzmann

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 01:22:46AM EST by Emanuel Kamali

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 11:56:44PM EST by Molly Witzmann

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 17, 2015 10:34:25PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 18, 2015 08:44:34PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Emanuel Kamali Molly Witzmann
    Use of evidence: 3.7 2.5
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 3.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.8 3.9
    Identification of key points: 3.5 3.5
    Comments: I'm not sure why Japanese reparations is the "best" piece of evidence showing why African Americans should get it. It's alright. But there are differences that are not irrelevant. I do like how you employ it during the round. I think your speech would be better if you proposed a specific form of reparations instead of just reparations in general.

    I wished you gave your specific reparations more precise. It seems like you're being a moving target by shifting what sort of reparations you'll provide throughout the course of the round. You do a good job responding in this speech but you should be carrying more of your offense through into this speech.

    You should come up with an idea of how much reparations would actually cost. You should also weigh the impact of debt versus the justice/racism impacts you're talking about.
    You should cite evidence in the appropriate text box and in your speech. You present a lot of your arguments defensively. Be more offensive in your articulations of your arguments.

    Use all your speech time in your closing opp speech. The time difference is your advantage and is how you make up for the prop having three speeches. Don't throw that time away. Impact our your debt argument. Who cares how many trillion dollars we are in debt? Why is that bad? Why does that impact outweigh the prop's argument? You need to be doing that impact comparison in your closing speech.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Molly Witzmann

    Reason for Decision:

    I really thought I was going to vote for the prop up until the proposition closing speech. The opposition only goes for defensive arguments in her closing. However, the prop only responds in his closing and doesn't clearly extend his impacts about why reparations are needed or answer some of the smaller defensive arguments made by the opposition. Ultimately, I end up voting on the argument that the people getting the reparations aren't the ones who were harmed so any risk of reparations doing something bad isn't worth it. I think some minimal impact weighing by the prop or extending your answers to this argument from your rebuttal to your closing would have made this an easy prop ballot. Sadly, it's defense versus defense at the end, which makes it hard to vote for the proposition.


    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