Judge: Joe Leeson-Schatz (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 13, 2015 01:22:56AM EST by Sean Tarzy
Harvard Law Review, 2002, JSTOR
Posted at October 13, 2015 09:50:22PM EST by Shekar Muruganathan
Posted at October 15, 2015 01:33:56AM EST by Sean Tarzy
"Study: Minority, Low-Income Students Lack Adequate Access to Educational Opportunities." Diverse. Charles Dervarics, 10 Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
Posted at October 16, 2015 12:36:02AM EST by Shekar Muruganathan
Posted at October 16, 2015 06:12:33PM EST by Sean Tarzy
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 17, 2015 10:00:03AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Sean Tarzy||Shekar Muruganathan|
|Use of evidence:||3||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||3.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.2||4|
|Identification of key points:||3.7||4|
|Comments:||Good speaking voice. You should use more sources to back up what you're saying. Also the cite that you provide doesn't give enough details to find the article that you're citing. You should have edited in some of the videos or provided links instead of just telling people that they can look them up. You do good on your impacts but could use more on how reparations can solve your impacts. You get in this a little but I think you could provide deeper analysis here.
You assert "facts" but you don't really provide sources to prove those "facts." Make more use of evidence to get your speaker points up. You start throwing up a bunch of different options such as free tuition, which seems like a shift from reparations in abstract, which you defend in your first speech.
You spend more time playing defense than going for your offensive arguments in regards to why you should win the round. Ie why is the apology more desirable.
|You come up a bunch of good arguments against reparations. However, you could be better at impacting them. "Would not be right" isn't much of an impact in comparison to the proposition's impacts. Explain why taxing would be bad or why doing something "not right" should outweigh the structural inequality and history that the proposition brings up. When you don't directly weigh your impacts you don't have a high level of responsiveness to your opponent.
You need to use all your speech time in your last speech. That extra time is your advantage on the opposition side. Good job in being responsive in your last speech. However, you need to extend your offense and explain why reparations are bad... not just why they may not be perfect or 100% needed. Offense versus defense. You should bring up your CP in your opening speech since it is a new argument in your rebuttal.
The decision is for the Proposition: Sean Tarzy
Reason for Decision:
By the end of the debate both sides are going for their defensive arguments instead of their offensive ones, which makes it hard to judge the round. I ultimately vote for the proposition since I don't have a reason why I shouldn't. I have reasons for why it may not be the best option but I don't have reasons for why it is a bad option. Prioritize your offense and explain why reparations are bad. Otherwise, why not issue an apology for historic injustice? The economy or tax arguments from the opposition's opening speech could be that reason but they don't make it into your final speech in a way that serves as a reason to reject the prop.