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: Dalante Dunklin (San Diego Christian College) vs. Opposition: Benjamin Jay (Binghamton University)

Judge: Randal Horobik (Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama)

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

  • Dalante Dunklin
    Dalante Dunklin
    vs.



    Benjamin Jay
    Benjamin Jay
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 09:17:09AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 09:43:10PM EST by Benjamin Jay

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 09:16:18PM EST by Dalante Dunklin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 08:24:51PM EST by Benjamin Jay

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 10:39:50PM EST by Dalante Dunklin

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 17, 2015 11:40:01PM EST by Randal Horobik

    Category Dalante Dunklin Benjamin Jay
    Use of evidence: 1 1
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.6
    Coherence of arguments: 3.5 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3.6
    Identification of key points: 3.5 4
    Comments: Thank you for a good clear structure and layout of your initial case Dalarte, I appreciated the clarity with which you laid out your original 4 case points. Don't forget to go back and pick that up as the debate goes on -- a couple of those points were never heard from again after that first 4 minutes of speaking time was done. Keep everything alive and force your opponent to engage you across the full breadth of your argument structure.

    By far and away my biggest suggestion is to find and cite some evidence to buttress your position in the debate. You (and your opponent) went the full debate without citing a single piece of evidence, which made the debate hard to adjudicate because it was a clash of my opinion vs. your opinion...I was left with no way to know if what you were saying was actual fact or a product of your own mind. Evidence is king in academic debate and helps you to build credibility as a speaker.
    Benjamin, you had a good speaking style that I enjoyed listening to. To take it to the next level you need to do three things -- 1. Cite evidence in support of your position. Evidence is king in debate and neither you nor your opponent offered me a single piece of evidence in this debate. As a result, I'm left in the position to rule on a debate simply by deciding whose unsubstantiated arguments make the most sense to me. 2. Use all your speech time -- you left nearly half of the allotted time for your rebuttal on the clock. As a result, instead of leaving me with a lasting impression for why you won the debate or driving home the points your opponent failed to respond to, you just ended your speech early. 3. Generate some offense with your arguments. You play a lot of defense in this debate telling me what's wrong with your opponent's position, which is fair strategy, but make it a little easier on your judge by also playing some offense and telling me something bad that's going to happen as a result of affirming the resolution. You hint at this with the whole monetary argument in your case speech, but then fail to reintroduce that point really in rebuttals so I can't very well advocate for it in my decision since you didn't find it important enough to pull through.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Benjamin Jay

    Reason for Decision:

    Aloha to both debaters from Hawai'i!! Mahalo (thank you) for providing me with this debate to adjudicate.

    As I've said under comments above, the biggest struggle I have with this debate is that neither participant offered a single fact or citation that was verified by an outside source to enhance their credibility. As a result, I'm forced to weigh competing positions filled with assertions that may or may not be accurate. Neither debater established any logos.

    There were also a lot of potential arguments that simply vanished from the round. For instance, Dalarte's fourth point could have set up a moralistic sort of rationale for reparations, but it wasn't developed. Benjamin had a great argument out of his case speech on the budget impacts of paying reparations, but we never hear it again in the back half of the debate.

    So, in the absence of evidence and a reduced field of arguments over the rebuttal phase of the debate, I'm forced to make a ruling based on who I felt did the best job on the argumentation lines that went the distance, so to speak. In that regard, I'm looking basically at the question of how we decide who should get paid and the basic workability matter of reparations. In that regard, I feel Benjamin, in opposition, was able to provide enough questions about how we ID who should receive payments and the fairness/unfairness to other groups to leave me with reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I sign this ballot in favor of the Opposition.

    Best of luck in your other rounds gentlemen!


    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