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: Danielle Belpedio (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Jeremiah Guevara (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

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

  • Danielle Belpedio
    Danielle Belpedio
    vs.



    Jeremiah Guevara
    Jeremiah Guevara
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 11:38:08PM EST by Danielle Belpedio

    Citations

    Show

    Adrienne D. Davis, 2000, Human Rights Brief Volume 7 Issue 3

    http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/reparations-what-white-people-need-to-know/

    James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton, 2005, Slavery and the Making of America, Oxford University Press


    Richard F. America, 1995, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40721651

    Posted at October 14, 2015 02:54:43AM EST by Jeremiah Guevara

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 07:05:50PM EST by Danielle Belpedio

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.cato.org/blog/budget-snapshot-average-annual-defense-spending-administration?gclid=CJCbg4mewsgCFYSQHwod3R4PWw

    Posted at October 16, 2015 02:43:54AM EST by Jeremiah Guevara

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 06:38:15PM EST by Danielle Belpedio

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 16, 2015 10:16:29PM EST by David Kane

    Category Danielle Belpedio Jeremiah Guevara
    Use of evidence: 2.9 2.6
    Delivery skill: 3.6 3.7
    Coherence of arguments: 3 2.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.3 3
    Identification of key points: 4 4
    Comments: You were fortunate that your opponent effectively conceded arguments to you, but you could have done a much better job at continuing to call them out.

    While you provided some citations, you didn't really make strong use of evidence. E.g. while you cited the size of the defense budget, you never actually said how much of that you are proposing using for reparations.

    Be careful about the citation of the years of slavery before the US was established. I thought your opponent was going to call you on that, but he didn't.

    Your opponent didn't bring this up, but I thought your argument that it would invite others to demand reparations was a problematic one. I can easily see folks seeing that as a negative. There is already enough strife in the world triggered from old grievances. Wouldn't this be a catalyst for more?
    As you can see from the decision, you have to be careful about conceding points to your opponent. The Native American argument could have been turned to your advantage. (Something like, "if African americans get reparations, then Native Americans will want them too, and even if we can afford reparations for African Americans, we'll never be able to afford it for Native Americans....something like that)

    Your opponent was right, you brought up too many arguments in your negative rebuttal.

    You let many of your opponents assertions go unchallenged.
    -- You two danced around whether it would cost too much, but since neither one of you said how much it would cost, how can you tell? Push the opposition to put out a number.
    -- Your opponent claimed this would encourage other countries. Is that really a good idea? There is already enough strife in the world triggered from old grievances. Wouldn't this be a catalyst for more?
    -- I thought you were going to make a strong point of the pre-US slaveholders, but didn't. (i.e. it was before the US was formed, so it is not our problem)

    The decision is for the Proposition: Danielle Belpedio

    Reason for Decision:

    The proposition won the round largely because of admissions by the opposition. The opposition agreed that affirmative action was an appropriate response, but never challenged the propositions argument that this was a form of reparation per the definition presented at the beginning of the round.

    Later, the negative argued that Native Americans should get reparations first, but this implied that African Americans should be next, and that is still basically a proposition argument.


    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