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: Elaine Wei (Unaffiliated) vs. Opposition: Rachel Lackow (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Elaine Wei
    Elaine Wei
    vs.



    Rachel Lackow
    Rachel Lackow
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 11:17:19PM EST by Elaine Wei

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 08:04:14PM EST by Rachel Lackow

    Citations

    Show

    Howard-Hassman, Rhoda, 2007, African Studies Review

    Na'im Madyum; Education and Human Development Professor at University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
    Race, Gender & Class: Vol. 18, Number 1-2, 2011

    Frank Wilderson: Red White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms

    Posted at October 15, 2015 12:28:05AM EST by Elaine Wei

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 03:00:13PM EST by Rachel Lackow

    Citations

    Show

    Rhonda E. Howard-Hassman, 2004, EBSCO Educational Database
    Getting to Reparations: Japanese Americans and African Americans

    David Frum is a senior editor atThe Atlanticand the chairman ofPolicy Exhange, a British think tank. He was also a speechwriter for George W. Bush in 2001-2002. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/the-impossibility-of-reparations/372041/


    Review: Greed, Goons and Genocide: The Essays of Ward Churchill
    Reviewed Work: From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism, 1985-1995 by Ward Churchillhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20068833?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Posted at October 17, 2015 02:18:22AM EST by Elaine Wei

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 18, 2015 09:31:26PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Elaine Wei Rachel Lackow
    Use of evidence: 2.5 4
    Delivery skill: 5 5.1
    Coherence of arguments: 5.1 5.1
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 5.2
    Identification of key points: 5.1 5
    Comments: Good delivery clarity. You should cite evidence and provide links for where your information comes from. I also like how you define your terms from the start. I also think you do a great job tracing the history of slavery through present time. Again, however, I would love if you provided evidence to back up the points you make. I think your prop might be extra-topical since I don't know if an apology etc falls within the definition of reparations. Otherwise though I think you had a great opener.

    Love the Sea Shepherd Shirt. Is that one of the prizes from last year? I think reducing your prop to "just an apology" undercuts the value of reparations. However, it is a pretty good "no link" so a bulk of the race argument. You still say "African American" so there could still be links so you should say more than just "no link." Good with the perm on the indigenous kritik and the CP. You need more offense against each of opp's off-case arguments, not just defense. Extend your offense and impacts from your opening speech better and with more force.

    You should explain why the two ideas not being mutually exclusive means I should vote for you. You could articulate it like a "perm" where you could claim net-benefits to apologizing to both. However, you do need to answer the opp's link argument that apologizing would still assume a homogenized definition of a population. You are right that this is a policy round and you don't need a specific plan. However, at several points it seems like you have a plan, such as issuing an apology. I think you get past the solvency arguments but you still need to win the impacts.
    Your speed and clarity at speaking shows me you should have stuck around and joined the debate team proper. I also like how you went for the kritik instead of just reparations bad that the majority of opp's did in this tournament. When you cite a whole book you should at least narrow it down to the relevant page numbers that you're referencing. Nice job with the counterplan and using it to solve your kritiks. You have the best opposition strategy I've judged this week.

    Good answer to the perm. Good push on evidence. You should make it clearer that you understand the reparations she gives is not monetary. You should have ran a procedural argument at in your opening speech to check against this. Good job on asking for leeway on your link stories based upon lack of specification earlier on. You should spend more time on your impacts of excluding one population over another.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Rachel Lackow

    Reason for Decision:

    First, excellent round. Truly. One of the best that I've judged ever in the online format.

    I ultimately vote for the opposition since I believe she wins links based upon the original opening proposition speech on who would have the apology issued. While it is true in theory the US government can issue an apology to indigenous and African American populations, the way the prop advocates doing so is not that. I also think that if this was a policy round you'd get more leeway on the perm since your plan is compatible with the CP; whereas your speech is not compatible with the opposition's alternative since defining of populations creates homogenous identities. This link applies even with the perm, which is why the opp says the two are incompatible.

    In short, there was a lot of time spent and citations given that clearly articulated links to blood quantumization and identity creation that weren't fully answered. The proposition should give offense against these positions instead of just going for "no link" and "competitiveness" arguments. While I think a lot of what the opp says doesn't link, I think there are enough where without offense to weigh against it makes me vote for the opp.

    The best arguments I would have used to respond would be...

    1) Identity politics / stable definitions of identity are good since they create a rally point to address injustice.

    2) Rejecting reparations due to other populations (indigenous) back burner African American concerns. The book the opp sites (red, white, and black) makes that argument specifically in relation to indigenous concerns.

    3) Anti-blackness structures other forms of violence and doing both together creates a better intersectional strategy to address oppression than rejecting the prop does. This would be the offensive net-benefit to your permutation and would be an easy impact to weigh against the links the opp has left standing.

    Again, great job to both of you!


    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