Judge: Sarah Evans (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.
 Molly Witzmann |
vs.
|
Emman Johari |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 12, 2015 10:32:55PM EST by Molly Witzmann
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 13, 2015 07:24:47PM EST by Emman Johari
David Horowitz, 2001, frontpagemagazine , http://dfamily.com/philosophy/teach/hswtl/extras/ten-reasons-why-reparations-is-bad-idea-for-blacks.pdf
Constitutional Rights Foundation, http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html
V. P. Franklin Source: The Journal of African American History, Vol. 98, No. 3, Symposium: St. Claire Drake: The Making of a Scholar-Activist (Summer 2013), pp. 363-366 Published by: Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc. Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5323/jafriamerhist.98.3.0363
Max Du Plessis, 2003, Historical Injustice and International Law: An Exploratory Discussion of Reparation for Slavery, https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy.binghamton.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v025/25.3du_plessis.html#top
Posted at October 15, 2015 12:01:29AM EST by Molly Witzmann
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 17, 2015 03:29:25PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 18, 2015 10:53:10AM EST by Sarah Evans
| Category | Molly Witzmann | Emman Johari |
|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence: | 3 | 4 |
| Delivery skill: | 3 | 3 |
| Coherence of arguments: | 3 | 3.5 |
| Responsiveness to opponent: | 3 | 4 |
| Identification of key points: | 3 | 3 |
| Comments: | I think you did you good in your first rebuttal, however, in your last speech you need to continue to respond to the negative's argument, and not just extend and explain your own case. There are too many negative arguments that you just don't respond, too, and I'm not sure if it's because you didn't want to extend your arguments after the 3 minutes of the rebuttal speech. I also think you could've argued that there was no harm done to the negative, he had time left in all his speeches, so there's no reason to not evaluate your argument. | I think you did a good job answering all the arguments in the round and extending and explaining your own. However, you should do a better job impacting your arguments, such as why education is important. In your first speech I got that it solves the moral issue and the root cause of the problem, and I'd like more explanation of that in your rebuttal & closing, especially when you have time left. |
The decision is for the Opposition: Emman Johari
Reason for Decision:
The affirmative didn't answer the negative's counterplan in her last speech, or the negative arguments against monetary reparations. The neg does a good job explaining why monetary reparations are bad (unfair to tax payers, hurt economy), which are just never answered, plus he offers an alternative of education, housing, etc. At this point I believe that something is being done to fix the harms mentioned by the aff, and there's no argument as to why these actions are bad, so I'm left with no choice but to vote negative.
For the negative you do need to answer the no child left behind policy and specify why it's not the same. You don't need sources to come up with arguments against it, and you don't need to specifically critique her sources. There is a ton of anti-child left behind arguments out there. This wasn't a new argument, because it was made in response to your education argument. Luckily for you she doesn't bring this up in her last speech (and it was made after her time was up in her rebuttal speech)
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
