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: Linda Abid (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Chris Um (San Diego Forensics)

Judge: Randal Horobik (Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama)

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

  • Linda Abid
    Linda Abid

    Chris Um
    Chris Um
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 02:35:21AM EST by Linda Abid



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 11:08:43PM EST by Chris Um



    Posted at October 15, 2015 02:54:46AM EST by Linda Abid



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 11:40:39PM EST by Chris Um



    Posted at October 17, 2015 12:45:13AM EST by Linda Abid



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 18, 2015 01:27:16AM EST by Randal Horobik

    Category Linda Abid Chris Um
    Use of evidence: 4.5 3.5
    Delivery skill: 5 3.2
    Coherence of arguments: 4.8 3.4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4.4 3
    Identification of key points: 4.1 3.6
    Comments: Linda, while I agree that you provided enough evidence for a citation in the original case speech, it is good etiquette in an online format to provide links so your opponent and, if necessary, the judge can easily view the material you cite.

    Overall, I found you to have a fairly consistent narrative from start to finish in this debate. You maybe got a little bogged down at times in rebuttals addressing arguments that weren't necessarily significant in the overall thread of that narrative, but I can hardly blame you for going where the action was on the flow and making sure you got your responses in.

    One last note -- check your levels on your recording. Compared to other debates I've judged, I was forced to stick my ear very close to my speaker to make out your words and even modest noise from my environment was making me have to strain to hear you at times during your delivery. I would hate for you to lose a future debate due to volume issues.
    Chris, thank you for your debate. My biggest suggestions for you would be as follows -- you typed citations into the page for where you got your evidence, but you never cite in your speeches when you use that evidence and from what site. Therefore, while I have a list of web addresses and such, I do not have anything to link them to in your speech to know where and to what degree you utilized those sources. Also, try to generate some offense in the debate. Your strategy largely rested on the difficulties your opponent has in implementing reparations, but delves very little into the harms that reparations may cause (you mention backlash a little, but never really impact it out or tell me how that might manifest in this case). While it is possible to win a strictly defensive debate in Opposition, it is also good to remember that generally offense wins debates, so you need to generate some...if there's no demonstration of harm, why wouldn't I vote for even a 0.01% chance of solvency on the Prop side?

    Lastly, listen to the uniqueness of your opponent's case. I didn't feel like some of your frontline arguments really clashed with the novelties of the Prop case (such as the idea of tax breaks rather than cash payments for African Americans). It sounded like you had your stock case written and never really considered how your opponent's claims might play against what you planned to say. Be flexible.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Linda Abid

    Reason for Decision:

    Aloha from Hawai'i and mahalo (thank you) for a good debate.

    I am signing my ballot for the Proposition in this contest because I felt her point about the psychological benefits of reparations went undefeated throughout the debate. Her plan to make reparations through tax credits also wasn't sufficiently attacked by the Opp., who asserted that payment would cause harms but never really provided a solid warrant for that argument. The claim that we would have a hard time ID'ing who deserves reparations was handled by Prop in the second rebuttal speech.

    Pop. needed to directly relate evidence in his speech and apply it specifically to points in Prop's speech or to stake out a unique position and assertion for the Opposition side of the debate. I didn't really hear that throughout the flow of the debate, so much of the conversation took place within Prop's narrative and I am left seeing enough of a benefit and an absence of harms to dissuade me from siding with her in the debate.

    Best of luck to you both in your debate futures!

    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: