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: Margaret Cubic (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Eric Cho (San Diego Forensics)

Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)

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

  • Margaret Cubic
    Margaret Cubic
    vs.



    Eric Cho
    Eric Cho
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 05:28:27PM EST by Margaret Cubic

    Citations

    Show

    Carson, Ann. "Prisoner of 2013." (2014): 9-10. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sept. 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf>.

    "Fast Facts: Degrees Conferred by Sex and Race." National Center for Education Statistics, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72>.

    Bureau, U.S. Census. Poverty Rates for Selected Detailed Race and Hispanic Groups by State and Place: 20072011 (n.d.): 5-6. U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf>.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 02:29:08AM EST by Eric Cho

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 08:27:09PM EST by Margaret Cubic

    Citations

    Show

    United States of America. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Percentage of High School Dropouts among Persons 16 through 24 Years Old (status Dropout Rate), by Sex and Race/ethnicity: Selected Years, 1960 through 2013. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. <https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_219.70.asp>.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 02:40:20AM EST by Eric Cho

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 08:22:07PM EST by Margaret Cubic

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 18, 2015 01:35:13AM EST by Josh Cangelosi

    Category Margaret Cubic Eric Cho
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4.5
    Delivery skill: 3.5 3
    Coherence of arguments: 4 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 5
    Identification of key points: 3 4.5
    Comments: First Prop: Organize speech into main contentions. Provide more varied verbal and non-verbal communication. Also, get to reasons for reparations more quickly. At half your speech, you have not provided one reason for reparations but simply have detailed some of the motivations and history of slavery.

    Second Prop: Much stronger speaking and debating in this speech! Excellent refutation, with the exception of your dropping the backlash argument.

    Last Prop: More clash needed.
    First Opp: It sounds like you are in a submarine. Provide more facial expressions. Good structure. Provide more answers to your opponent's arguments.

    Second opp: Not sure that all the definitions are that important, but you make lots of good arguments in this speech. Good job calling out the new plan specifications regarding taxes, and nice job turning those new specifications into disadvantages (greater cause for backlash and taxation of African Americans).

    The decision is for the Opposition: Eric Cho

    Reason for Decision:

    RFD: Nice sociable debate. I disregard everything after 4:00 minutes in the last Opp speech. However, the Aff's final speech does not address Opp's turns. Namely, Aff drops the backlash argument throughout the debate and drops the argument that taxing Americans will fuel even more backlash. Aff also drops the argument that African Americans will also be taxed, which at least mitigates Aff's solvency by undercutting the reduced expenses of the plan with added taxation. In the end, the plan will increase racial violence and tax even African Americans, calling into question Aff's solvency. In all likelihood, that tax will not be greater than all the free services offered by Aff's plan, but Aff never makes that argument. And since the tax specification of plan funding comes out late as a response to Opp's deficit spending argument, further specifications of that tax would be abusive so late in the debate.


    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