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: Emman Johari (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Andrew Seo (San Diego Forensics)

Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)

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

  • Emman Johari
    Emman Johari
    vs.



    Andrew Seo
    Andrew Seo
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 19, 2015 10:44:25PM EST by Emman Johari

    Citations

    Show

    Max Du Plessis, 2003, Historical Injustice and International Law: An Exploratory Discussion of Reparation for Slavery,
    Link: https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy.binghamton.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v025/25.3du_plessis.html#top
    Martha Biondi. "The Rise of the Reparations Movement." Radical History Review 87.1 (2003): 5-18. Project MUSE. Web.
    Link: https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v087/87.1biondi.html
    V. P. Franklin
    The Journal of African American History
    Vol. 97, No. 12, Special Issue: African Americans and Movements for Reparations: Past, Present, and Future (WinterSpring 2012), pp. 1-12
    Link: http://www.jstor.org.proxy.binghamton.edu/stable/pdf/10.5323/jafriamerhist.97.1-2.0001.pdf?acceptTC=true

    Posted at October 21, 2015 02:57:17AM EST by Andrew Seo

    Citations

    Show

    My citations are here:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=19evw_-us10JH3ibXBck_EOkNORJ_fWJo4Mr8fnFyZSfCayq0Al4senTCcl4ftaZThnFuwgyb-5FfnmDj

    Posted at October 21, 2015 09:59:44PM EST by Emman Johari

    Citations

    Show

    Max Du Plessis, 2003, Historical Injustice and International Law: An Exploratory Discussion of Reparation for Slavery,
    Link: https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy.binghamton.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v025/25.3du_plessis.html#top

    Posted at October 23, 2015 10:21:16AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 23, 2015 04:28:40PM EST by Emman Johari

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 2, 2015 11:17:13PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Category Emman Johari Andrew Seo
    Use of evidence: 5 4.1
    Delivery skill: 4 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 4.1 4.3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.4 5
    Identification of key points: 3 3.6
    Comments: I like how you define your terms at the onset of your speech. You spend a lot of time describing reparations to Japanese-Americans. I would spend more of that time on the topic specifically and use the Japanese-American example to answer arguments the opposition might bring up.

    Good job responding to the opposition's argument. You should extend more of your harms from your first speech and weigh your impacts versus his impacts (which are mostly non-existence). I like your press on sources.

    Meh, waste of time on the late post. Go for the substance. Also the name indict is also meh. Same with the speed. Why are you not going back to the main points you were making earlier. You were winning the debate up until this point.
    You should have more sources to use in your debate. I like how you limit the debate down to what the proposition defines reparations are. I think a lot of your earlier points are defensive. Ie who cares if some people who don't deserve reparations get them? What's the impact? Focus on your offense.

    You should point out what arguments the prop isn't answering so I can guard against it for you. Just saying no new arguments is obvious. What arguments were made? Again, you are forefronting your defensive arguments and not your offense. What's the impact to tax payer culpability? You are a good hole poker. You need to develop a more cohesive overall strategy though. Good press back on his cites as well.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Andrew Seo

    Reason for Decision:

    Ugh. If the proposition just repeated the points you made in the rebuttal speech you would have won. The opposition only makes defensive arguments against the idea of reparations with no real impacts. However, the last proposition rebuttal is just a bunch of new small procedural arguments that don't give me a good enough reason to vote for you. Spending more than the final ~30 seconds or so on why reparations are important would have made it an easy proposition ballot. I think the prop provides more (and better) sources and does a better job impacting out why reparations are good in the beginning portion of the debate. Sadly, none of that makes it through to the last speech.


    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