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: Chris Um (San Diego Forensics) vs. Opposition: Kanupriya Pandey (Binghamton University)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

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

  • Chris Um
    Chris Um
    vs.



    Kanupriya Pandey
    Kanupriya Pandey
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 09:17:18AM EST by Chris Um

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/reparations_should_be_paid_to_black_americans_here_is_how_america_should.html

    http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html

    Posted at October 14, 2015 12:18:46AM EST by Kanupriya Pandey

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.blackenterprise.com/small-business/african-american-buying-power-projected-trillions/

    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
    Published by: Association for the Study of African American Life and History

    Michael Peil, 1997, "The law of slavery in the United States," Legal Information Institute at Cornell University

    Rhonda E. Howard-Hassman, 2004, EBSCO Educational Database
    Getting to Reparations: Japanese Americans and African Americans

    Eric Yamamoto, 2003, LexisNexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.binghamton.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/? , American Racial Justice on Trail

    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

    Posted at October 15, 2015 12:18:15AM EST by Chris Um

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 09:00:32PM EST by Kanupriya Pandey

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.blackenterprise.com/small-business/african-american-buying-power-projected-trillions/

    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
    Published by: Association for the Study of African American Life and History

    Michael Peil, 1997, "The law of slavery in the United States," Legal Information Institute at Cornell University

    Rhonda E. Howard-Hassman, 2004, EBSCO Educational Database
    Getting to Reparations: Japanese Americans and African Americans

    Eric Yamamoto, 2003, LexisNexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.binghamton.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/? , American Racial Justice on Trail

    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


    hooks, bell. Where We Stand: Class Matters. New York: Routledge, 2000. Print.


    Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary Political Ideology, The University of Chicago Press,

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf


    http://www.blackenterprise.com/tag/business-report/

    Posted at October 16, 2015 11:13:01PM EST by Chris Um

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 17, 2015 10:32:37PM EST by David Kane

    Category Chris Um Kanupriya Pandey
    Use of evidence: 3 4.5
    Delivery skill: 3.5 4.5
    Coherence of arguments: 3.3 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3.3 4
    Identification of key points: 3.3 4
    Comments: You got very focused on the point-by-point response to your opponent, and I think you lost sight of the big picture. You opponent had a counter plan, and while it different from your plan, the essence of the plan with in support of the proposition, except for the actor of the plan. E.g. She pointed out that much of the harm of slavery was legislated by the states, but much of the remedy was from the federal government. Doesn't that make her plan wishful thinking? She argued that the "states" should do this, but many states didn't even exist when slavery was last, would they be responsible for these actions? In any event, figure out what the most important part of the debate are, and focus your attention there.

    BTW, your opponent made the argument that what you proposed was the status quo, but as she described it, much of her counter plan is in the status quo as well. The federal government and many states have minority set-aside programs for businesses.

    Be careful about your citations. The ones you included were full of arguments against your case.
    Be careful not to overstate matters. It is true you provided stronger citations that your opponent, but it is false that your opponent provided no citations. There were a couple with his initial presentation.

    Be careful with your status quo argument. There are federal and many state programs for contracts to business that are for minority-owned firms. (Yes, this is broader than just African Americans, but they are an included group)

    I think you should also be careful with your identification argument. If your setup if you self-identify as black, you get a reparation. You didn't say this, but does this also mean whites get to self-identify for the opportunity to pay? Seems like a system ripe for abuse.

    That said, for this debate format, I am not sure this identification argument is worthwhile for the opposition. If when you win the point, I am not sure it will sway the outcome of the debate. (i.e. I don't think you can expect the debate about the plan to become severed from the resolution)

    I'd be careful with your 40 acres and a mule argument. Is that precedent, or does that mean that the reparations have already been paid?

    The decision is for the Opposition: Kanupriya Pandey

    Reason for Decision:

    The round went to the opposition on the strength of the counter-plan that emphasized that it should be a "state" responsibility, not a federal responsibility. The counter plan had some other properties, that although were in conflict with the propositions definitions (e.g. which African Americans were included), it wasn't really a factor in the decision, since both aligned with the resolution text.


    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