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: Gene Gau (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Natalie Perales (San Diego Christian College)

Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)

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

  • Gene Gau
    Gene Gau

    Natalie Perales
    Natalie Perales
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 11:07:16PM EST by Gene Gau



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 02:13:09AM EST by Natalie Perales



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 12:41:59AM EST by Gene Gau



    Brad Plumer 01/07/2013 "America's staggering defense budget, in charts"

    Posted at October 15, 2015 10:37:12PM EST by Natalie Perales



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 05:03:59PM EST by Gene Gau



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 18, 2015 01:44:10PM EST by Josh Cangelosi

    Category Gene Gau Natalie Perales
    Use of evidence: 2 2
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3.5
    Coherence of arguments: 5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 5
    Identification of key points: 4 5
    Comments: First Prop: Excellent speaking and argumentation. Nice lively, expressive speaking style.

    Second Prop: Excellent refutation.

    Final Prop speech: Tone is unnecessarily rude, which makes me far less inclined to vote for you. Always remain sociable to your opponents in debate and show good sportsmanlike conduct. I like the motto "knock em out, but with a feather glove." That is, be assertive and confident, and debate to win, but remain polite and friendly.
    First Opp: Great argumentation and clash, and clear, articulate speaking. Speech is just over time.

    Second Opp: Also great argumentation.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Natalie Perales

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD: This is actually a really close debate, the best one I happened to judge. Here's how I sort through all the issues:

    Topicality: In response to T, Prop states that she would not have exceeded the time limit if she spoke faster, and Opp never responds. I am inclined to agree since the rate of delivery in the Prop was exceedingly slow, which means that Opp was not placed in that much of an unfair disadvantage in having to respond to lots of content. Also, not a lot of work is done on the voter here. I am just told Opp loses because of fairness, but why should Opp lose exactly? Maybe allowing time violations sets a precedent that will be followed in the future. Maybe no debaters will want to compete in this format if judges allow for such time violations going forward. In any case, in light of the question of whether Opp was really put at an unfair disadvantage given the slow rate of delivery, I'm not seeing much reason to vote on T.

    On Defense DA: For one thing, plan funding should have come out in the first speech, not as a response to the tax DA. In any case, Opp drops Prop's claim that decreasing the defense budget by 1% will not harm defense. So the defense DA goes away.

    On Taxes: Prop never responds to Opp's argument that taxes will mitigate any economic benefit of giving African Americans money. Indeed, if money is just taken from some to pay others, there is no net gain to consumer spending, so Prop's Econ Adv goes away. I have to allow this tax DA to stand since the funding specifications about defense cuts should have come out in the first speech, not as a way to get out of funding DAs.

    On the issue of whether taxpayers are responsible, Opp drops Prop argument that all taxpayers have benefited from slavery and, thus, are responsible.

    Prop drops Opp's argument that there are alternatives to plan, including affirmative action and legislative attempts to quell racial division. Prop's only argument was that Opp did not provide details, but then Opp provides these details, and Prop never responds, so the Alternatives stand.

    Prop also misunderstands Opp's argument that the rich African Americans are not being treated equally along with poor African Americans. Opp argues that if they all are the heirs of oppression, then they should all be paid the same. Prop also fails to answer Opp's question about how mixed races will be paid, so even if plan does not need to figure out which African Americans are the descendants of slavery, plan still needs to figure out which people count as African Americans.

    On the prison: Prop drops Opp's argument that the prison can be abolished without paying reparations and that paying reparations will not abolish the prison.

    Prop also drops Opp's impact that racial tension will be increased if we tax Americans who were not guilty of the crimes. So even if those taxpayers benefited from slavery, there is still this problem.

    In light of these considerations, I'm not seeing much remaining benefit of plan. I'm not sure how plan is being funded, whether through cuts to defense spending or taxation, and I feel like looking only at defense cuts (which came out only as a response to the tax DA) would be unfair to Opp. I'm not seeing much of an impact to voting on topicality. And there remain alternatives to solving any problems Prop mentions, alternatives that would not bite the backlash DA from taxes.

    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: