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: Monique Shannon (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Randal Horobik (Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama)

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

  • Emman Johari
    Emman Johari
    vs.



    Monique  Shannon
    Monique Shannon
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 07:25:45PM EST by Emman Johari

    Citations

    Show

    Citations:

    1. 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

    2.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


    3.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 13, 2015 11:11:21PM EST by Monique Shannon

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/budget_deficit
    http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/black.html

    Posted at October 14, 2015 11:02:54PM EST by Emman Johari

    Citations

    Show

    1. 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

    2.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


    3.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 15, 2015 08:30:16PM EST by Monique Shannon

    Citations

    Show

    "Recent Federal Budget Deficits." US Federal Budget Deficit for 2011_2020. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31 July 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

    Posted at October 17, 2015 11:14:51AM 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 12:31:16AM EST by Randal Horobik

    Category Emman Johari Monique Shannon
    Use of evidence: 5.2 4
    Delivery skill: 4 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 4.2
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4
    Identification of key points: 4.3 4.1
    Comments: Emman, having just adjudicated a debate in which no evidence was read immediately before this one, hearing your citations was a breath of fresh air. I cannot thank you enough for putting in some research time to back up your side of the debate.

    As far as things go, I would have liked you to reintroduce your points a little clearer in the rebuttal phase. You reference "your points" or "what I said" but never really label exactly what you said to indicate to me where you think your best line of victory in the debate was (outside the quality and nature of your evidence). Make it a point in that final rebuttal minute to give me a 60 second sales pitch for "here are the reasons I've won today's debate." Use the power of having the last word to leave a lasting impression in my mind.
    Monique, you're an awesome speaker and I truly enjoyed listening to your speeches in this debate.

    You bring up some good questions in the debate, but in some cases I think your strategy hit a beat too slow. For instance, in your rebuttal speech, you posit the question that "ought" implies being able to do the task at hand -- that's a great argument, but it's one I need to hear from the very beginning, not introduced as a definition in your last speech. In the first speech, that becomes a major offensive weapon, in the rebuttal it's almost an afterthought and really could be considered a new argument. At the very least, it doesn't carry the weight it could/should if you employed it as a major narrative point in the negative constructive.

    You brought up some questions in the debate and alluded to your opponent not answering or dealing with them, but on my flow I heard answers to a few of those questions you ask. Make sure if you're saying nothing was said that there truly was nothing said, especially in an online format where we all have the luxury of listening to speeches over and over again.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Emman Johari

    Reason for Decision:

    Aloha from Hawai'i and mahalo (thank you) for a great debate. I truly enjoyed the banter that was in this exchange.

    Regarding the matter of Emman's constructive speech, I dropped all notes I'd made from the 4:15 mark of the video onward (the time stamp being my choice given the presence of roughly 15 seconds of introductory remarks at the start of the speech and the normal cushion I'd give someone to wrap up their final sentence in a debate).

    I sign this ballot for the Proposition for the following reasons:

    1. I felt the question of "why" we should pay was addressed early in the case speech when Prop notes there are effects of slavery that are felt within the status quo. I believe the phrase domino effect to the modern day was used.

    2. That brings me to the "how" element of the debate, which seems to be where the greatest amount of clash took place. I agree with Prop that there was a bit of a contradiction in the Opp rebuttal here...at one point saying that his suggestion that collecting taxes is possible is a new argument while later in the speech accusing him of not providing a description for how we would pay. The view through my eyes was that Prop's statement on taxes was a response to Opp. asking in her constructive where the money would come from.

    3. I thought Opp hurt herself slightly at the point where she suggests we could "give them education" in response to the charter school and graduation rate point. As I'm hearing the Prop's original case, that action could be considered a form of reparation. At the very least, it seemed to acknowledge a gap that needs addressed, which weakens the questioning Opp does of why we need reparations in the first place.

    4. The quality of Prop's evidence was strong and on point and definitely deserves a degree of acknowledgement when placed in contrast to the evidence offered by Opp. This wasn't so much a voter issue for me, but I do want to state it for the record in case other debaters view these videos and take the time to check this ballot.

    Both of you are strong and I hope both of you advance to the next round of this competition. Kudos for taking on this contest and doing your respective institutions of higher education proud.


    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