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: savannah swillinger (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Sean Tarzy (Binghamton University)

Judge: Sarah Evans (Binghamton University)

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

  • savannah swillinger
    savannah swillinger
    vs.



    Sean Tarzy
    Sean Tarzy
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 13, 2015 01:50:12AM EST by savannah swillinger

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 14, 2015 02:28:20AM EST by Sean Tarzy

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 01:48:32AM EST by savannah swillinger

    Citations

    Show

    Greiff, Pablo De. <i>The Handbook of Reparations</i>. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.

    Posted at October 15, 2015 04:35:18PM EST by Sean Tarzy

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 16, 2015 04:12:25PM EST by savannah swillinger

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/09/210138278/japanese-internment-redress

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 17, 2015 04:24:36PM EST by Sarah Evans

    Category savannah swillinger Sean Tarzy
    Use of evidence: 2 2
    Delivery skill: 4 3
    Coherence of arguments: 3 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 3 3
    Identification of key points: 2 2
    Comments: I think you did a good job in your first speech specifying what reparations were and what examples of them could be, and also what impacts you're solving for. The problem is in future speeches you don't really expand upon that. Tell me why to vote aff, what are your advantages, etc. I think your first speech is good setting up why not only you had a better option, but also why the aff's case was bad. I just don't have a clear explanation of what your counter plan does, and if it was really even extended in the end. Also, just a heads up, avoid the whole i have black friends argument, it doesn't add anything to your arguments and just sounds bad.

    The decision is for the Proposition: savannah swillinger

    Reason for Decision:

    The affirmative starts the round telling me that there are things beyond money reparations that can be done, fair prices, interest rates, college education, pre-job training, etc. She also goes on to tell me by doing these things that the economy will benefit, that all people will be equal, and that there will be peace for all people. After that there is no talk about the impacts/advantages of voting affirmative. Also, there's no clear, consistent, discussion of what reparations the aff plan uses. There's no clear analysis of the gov't will do x to make reparations, it's just that reparations should be done, and they may include these things. Then in the second aff speech she mentions college education specifically, but in her last speech mentions tax cuts. I really have no idea what the reparations are. The neg initially points out that the reparations listed by the aff are still monetary, but there's no extension of that in the second speech, and there's no impact from either side why monetary reparations are bad. I think this could've been expanded upon and used as a reason not to vote aff, that just wasn't. Not really sure about the counterplan, I'm not sure what exactly it does, and while you say you can't do both, I'm not entirely sure why that's true. This all becomes irrelevant, because you don't really talk about it in your last speech.
    It comes down to I can vote aff and fix a problem that both people agree exists, altho may be getting better on its own, or do I vote neg and keep things the way they are. The impact I have to voting neg is that other people will want free stuff, I'm not really sure what that means, like so what? Plus this was a new argument in his last speech. Voting neg leaves us with the status quo, the violence and poverty will still exist, and the neg himself discusses how these are current issues (even if they are currently getting better). Voting aff may do something to make this better more quickly, and if it fails then we're left with the status quo, plus some people who may want free stuff, too. Since no one did any analysis for me on how I should vote and weigh arguments, impacts, etc., I'm left thinking that aff has the most chance of an advantage.


    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