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: Rick Mechanic (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Andrew Seo (San Diego Forensics)

Judge: Khea Rodrigo (Stanford University)

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

  • Rick Mechanic
    Rick Mechanic
    vs.



    Andrew Seo
    Andrew Seo
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 01:51:35AM EST by Rick Mechanic

    Citations

    Show

    Shin, Laura. "The Racial Wealth Gap." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 11:05:23PM EST by Andrew Seo

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 09:27:15PM EST by Rick Mechanic

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 02:34:26AM EST by Andrew Seo

    Citations

    Show

    My Source Citation:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ausZ4SRWPtpMoxxAqTfRPNOq3v0z3CaTiMGowxDq5DsjQfwUE7xFcQ0cyQcfV1B_Ya020Loz6ut_kM4x/view?usp=sharing

    Posted at October 16, 2015 08:21:09PM EST by Rick Mechanic

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 17, 2015 11:44:06AM EST by Khea Rodrigo

    Category Rick Mechanic Andrew Seo
    Use of evidence: 4.5 4
    Delivery skill: 4.5 5
    Coherence of arguments: 4.5 5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 5
    Identification of key points: 3.5 5
    Comments: Rick, I would like to start off by saying that your sarcastic/emotional comments are not needed.

    I liked your plan very much, about the mortgage rates, and I liked how you used your citations. However, you only cited two sources, and that's not enough to back your claim up. However, you did more than Andrew, so I gave you more points.

    In your rebuttal, you state that David Horowitz is not a reliable source, but you that that was your only rebut to Andrew's counter-plan. When you say that piece of evidence contradicts what Andrew said earlier. That was true, but you destroyed that rebut when you state he isn't a reliable source, so now on my flow sheet, I crossed out the evidence, but you can't use that contradicting piece of evidence anymore.

    In your last speech, you disregard your opponent's rebut to your counter-plan, and that makes your plan disregarded on my flow sheet.

    You also try to rebut your opponent's arguments that you didn't care to rebut in your last speech. You rebutted it even though your opponent said you couldn't because it wouldn't be fair to him, and you also conceded it.

    By what Andrew means the concept, Andrew means that it isn't socialist/communist if other countries are distributing money to them. The concept of the government taxing the citizens to distribute that money to another ethnicity, is communist/socialist.

    By the way, you were 15 seconds over the time limit if I add them all together, so that also made a mark on your speaker points.

    I don't get when you said a rewind button is completely useless, because I could hear Andrew fine, and if he didn't say something clearly, I heard it over several times, and deduced what he was trying to say.

    The last speech's purpose is to make a summary of your points, and make a concluding statement. You use that time to make a second rebuttal speech.

    Overall, it was good, but not enough to win Andrew.
    Andrew, you are young, but I didn't let that influence me. You did not make a good use of your evidence as much as Rick did.

    Some of your arguments may have slippery slope arguments, but I like your responsiveness to Rick.

    Other than that, you were a great speaker.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Andrew Seo

    Reason for Decision:

    I voted for Andrew, because his arguments outweighed his opponents, and his slippery-slope arguments, no one responded to. Rick, you have no leverage because Andrew crossed them all out with his rebuttals.


    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