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: Alexandra Rueger (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: adam belizzone (Binghamton University)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

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

  • Alexandra Rueger
    Alexandra Rueger
    vs.



    adam belizzone
    adam belizzone
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 10:34:33PM EST by Alexandra Rueger

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 09:12:34PM EST by adam belizzone

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 12:34:12AM EST by Alexandra Rueger

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 10:17:28PM EST by adam belizzone

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 18, 2015 12:39:55AM 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 10:20:20AM EST by David Kane

    Category Alexandra Rueger adam belizzone
    Use of evidence: 3.5 4
    Delivery skill: 3.5 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3.9 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.1 3.6
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Make your arguments more directly and forcefully. It was really striking in your first rebuttal where you kept using the phrase like "I don't understand," to describe claims your opponent made. Instead of making the case that your opponents argument was weak, you came across as making an observation about your analysis skills. This personalization came up in your closing rebuttal when you said, "I do believe..." In debate, you have to debate both sides of an argument. Whether the side you currently have to argue is alignment with your personal beliefs is not really relevant.

    The USDA citation was great, you just didn't reargue the point in your closing rebuttal. (i.e. make the case that because of past injustice, working hard isn't enough)

    You also didn't carry through some of the arguments from your constructive. e.g in the opposition rebuttal he said why should people now pay reparations for injustices in the past that they had nothing to do with. However, you had already made a nice argument in your constructive that this was not just about slavery, but slavery/Jim Crow/Housing/racism. Similarly your opponent had a lot of arguments about college admission, and outcomes post-graduation, but that really doesn't counter the data you presented in your constructive about the difficulty of finishing college. However, you didn't reinforce this.

    Your opponent spent a lot of time arguing about the "effectiveness" of reparations, where you seemed to get very focused on the justification of "reparations."

    Your opponent's arguments around college admissions were interesting, but there are huge educational disparities at lower education levels. There are all sorts of examples of systemic effects. Your opposition had an interesting stat about college and black women's pay equity. But, do back women get to and through college at the same rate?

    Note: the responsiveness to opponent score was lowered to reflect that the last speech was uploaded after the deadline.
    Be careful about introducing new arguments in your rebuttal. You raised questions like, "who is going to pay" and "how do you figure out who gets them" Those are fine questions to raise, but do that during your constructive.

    I thought your critique on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of what a reparation program would look like was pretty good. I can certainly see some weaknesses in those arguments, and your opponent has pieces of a critique in her constructive, but she didn't follow through.

    I wasn't quite sure where you were going with the "everyone is a slaver" argument at the beginning of your constructive, but it never came back up, and so wasn't a factor in the debate.

    The decision is for the Opposition: adam belizzone

    Reason for Decision:

    The debate went to the opposition. The proposition didn't carry through may of the arguments to the end of the debate.


    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