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: Andrew Seo (San Diego Forensics) vs. Opposition: Michael Beckwith (Binghamton University)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Andrew Seo
    Andrew Seo
    vs.



    Michael Beckwith
    Michael Beckwith
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 20, 2015 01:32:59AM EST by Andrew Seo

    Citations

    Show

    All my sources are here:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8g6a5-TijIMb1dHaVo3V1Z5MEE

    Posted at October 20, 2015 11:13:10PM EST by Michael Beckwith

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_138.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/06/19/why-reparations-wouldnt-work/

    https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

    https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

    http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really-change-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356428818/u-s-budget-deficit-falls-to-pre-recession-levels

    Posted at October 22, 2015 09:04:25AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 23, 2015 03:56:10PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 24, 2015 11:10:28AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 3, 2015 12:35:10AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Andrew Seo Michael Beckwith
    Use of evidence: 3.5 5
    Delivery skill: 3.8 4
    Coherence of arguments: 4.2 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 5 3.1
    Identification of key points: 3.8 3.5
    Comments: I like how you use your definitions to back up argument for why your affirmation makes sense. I also think it's strategically beneficial to narrow your argument down to the question of morality.

    Good job going back to your morality argument. I would spend more time expanding on it. Also, good job perming the CP as well as prioritizing the impacts of African Americans to Irish people.

    A 1 second time infraction is just nit-picking at this point. You should just spend your time debating out the round. You also need to explain why you win the round instead of just why the opp might not be right.
    I don't think reparations is the same thing as lottery reasons. It seems like an awful stretch in argumentation. Also a lot of your arguments are about the actual implementation about reparations and not the question about morality, which is what the prop defines the debate to be about based upon his definition of "ought." I like your CP idea.

    You need to make your kritiks more offensive. Just because other groups deserve reparations doesn't mean we shouldn't pay reparations to African Americans. He isn't advocating for universal reparations. You should go for why that's bad instead of arguing that universalizing reparations would be a bad thing. Also, you need to take into consideration the perm on the CP that would give reparations based upon your mechanism. You need to prove why the CP is mutually exclusive. You make one five second argument in response.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Michael Beckwith

    Reason for Decision:

    The CP is better than the plan at providing reparations in a fair manner that captures the benefits of the proposition side without linking to the disadvantages the opp brings up. The prop doesn't extend the perm in the last speech but rather just says the CP affirms the resolution. Even if that's true it's still a reason to why the prop is effectively negated. The opp closing gives one answer to why they two are mutually exclusive (the perm would still cost money as per the prop's plan) which is never answered in the prop's last speech. With a clear permutation extension OR a clear extension of how I should be judging the round based upon morality and not logistics I would be voting for the prop. However, neither of those two things happen in the last speech, which enables me to vote for the opp since the CP is a better logistically way to distribute reparations that is mutually exclusive with the prop's plan.


    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