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: Shekar Muruganathan (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: savannah swillinger (Binghamton University)

Judge: Brennan Young (Winston Churchill High School)

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

  • Shekar Muruganathan
    Shekar Muruganathan
    vs.



    savannah swillinger
    savannah swillinger
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 12, 2015 07:14:22PM EST by Shekar Muruganathan

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/
    http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html

    Posted at October 13, 2015 09:08:01PM EST by savannah swillinger

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html

    Na'im Madyum; Education and Human Development Professor at University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
    Race, Gender & Class: Vol. 18, Number 1-2, 2011


    http://www.jstor.org.proxy.binghamton.edu/stable/41068938?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=costly&searchText=reparations&searchText=for&searchText=african&searchText=americans&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcostly%2Breparations%2Bfor%2Bafrican%2Bamericans%26amp%3Bprq%3Dcostly%2Breperations%2Bfor%2Bafrican%2Bamericans%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bhp%3D25%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bwc%3Don&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Posted at October 14, 2015 11:33:28PM EST by Shekar Muruganathan

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html

    Posted at October 16, 2015 01:49:39AM EST by savannah swillinger

    Citations

    Show

    https://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/reparations.html

    http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/PageServer?pagename=naa_livingconditions

    Posted at October 17, 2015 12:36:28AM EST by Shekar Muruganathan

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.htm

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 17, 2015 12:12:48PM EST by Brennan Young

    Category Shekar Muruganathan savannah swillinger
    Use of evidence: 1.4 1.6
    Delivery skill: 2.9 2.6
    Coherence of arguments: 2.6 2.8
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.5 3.2
    Identification of key points: 1.7 3
    Comments: Ok, so same thing I told Savannah -

    1.) Try to cite your evidence orally. I know that you used evidence to compile your speeches with the citations you provided, however, it'd be great to see you link specific arguments you make in your speech with evidence. The best way to orally cite is to find the last name of the author of your evidence and the year it was published and use those as place markers throughout the round or at least your speech. i.e: "African American communities will suffer from reparations. This is Daly 15." Then, later on in the round, it's easier to extend arguments you've made and allows me to easily fulfill the role of the ballot.

    2.) Do NOT ask rhetorical questions in debates. Instead, use them to generate offense. It's a hard habit to break but it can make a huge difference. Instead of asking rhetorical questions about how the entirety of the Pro/Aff's advocacy of implementation of reparations would happen, replace that all with something like... "There's absolutely no social or government framework for which reparations will be given." A good example of how you could have done this comes from your first speech. You ask a ton of questions about how the USFG (United States Fed. Gov.) would identify African Americans who would actually fit the correct criteria to receive reparations. You should've framed it as an offensive argument such as... "There's no absolutely no way to identify who would receive reparations." It's a small thing but it goes a huge distance.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    (Read Savannah's notes too - specifically on extending arguments. There's a lot you can pick out of those notes that can help you.)
    So, your case coming out of your first speech was strong, however, your strategy going into the rebuttal fell apart at an exponential rate. The problem was that you spent all your time attacking/responding to her arguments and you didn't allocate any time to extending your own case. You essentially conceded your case.

    Take some time to look at the arguments she's made, then find the arguments you know can beat you and hold a significant ability to kill your solvency or your access to your impacts etc. and then attack those. The rest of the arguments you can hit in less than five seconds by saying that there's no link and/or it's not significant.

    Your best contention was that related to things such as being robbed of any inheritance, or how African Americans are naturally at an educational disadvantage. If you would've extended that in the status quo, African Americans are in a educational disadvantage, and that this reinvigorates the cycle of poverty that also creates an oppressive situation and these things kills value to life, you could've easily outweighed her case and picked up the ballot.

    Also, while I didn't and don't use any predetermined biases and/or knowledge to determine a round - for future reference, the United States has completely fucked over the Native Americans. Sure they got land, but they got really shitty land. It was infertile and they didn't care about the land, they cared about the religious significance of their original land. The USFG also killed off their only food source which was the buffalo.

    And with the Japanese-American reparation example: A problem with this example is that the United States had huge system and framework for keeping hard records of who was in the internment camps. Not to mention that slavery was conducted by private parties whilst internment camps were regulated and held directly by the State.
    Just a couple of quick notes:

    1.) Try to cite your evidence orally. I know that you used evidence to compile your speeches with the citations you provided, however, it'd be great to see you link specific arguments you make in your speech with evidence. The best way to orally cite is to find the last name of the author of your evidence and the year it was published and use those as place markers throughout the round or at least your speech. i.e: "African American communities will suffer from reparations. This is Daly 15." Then, later on in the round, it's easier to extend arguments you've made and allows me to easily fulfill the role of the ballot.

    2.) Do NOT ask rhetorical questions in debates. Instead, use them to generate offense. It's a hard habit to break but it can make a huge difference. Instead of asking rhetorical questions about how the entirety of the Pro/Aff's advocacy of implementation of reparations would happen, replace that all with something like... "There's absolutely no social or government framework for which reparations will be given." A good example of how you could have done this comes from your first speech. You ask a ton of questions about how the USFG (United States Fed. Gov.) would identify African Americans who would actually fit the correct criteria to receive reparations. You should've framed it as an offensive argument such as... "There's no absolutely no way to identify who would receive reparations." It's a small thing but it goes a huge distance.

    -------------------------------------------------------
    (Read Shekar's notes too.)
    So, arguably the hardest speeches in debates are the rebuttal speeches. This is especially true for participants who aren't versed in argumentative strategy. Try not to make any new arguments in your last speech. Instead, extend the arguments you made in your first speech and point out arguments he didn't respond to. Point out that he completely doesn't extend his case. Because the truth is, if the Pro/Aff drops their entire case, the debate is essentially conceded to you past his second speech and you pick up the ballot here.

    You should go back and look at each main argument you make and either tell me that he dropped it and then tell me why the argument is important. Or, if he responded to it, respond to what he said, and tell me why you're still winning the argument and again, why it's significant.

    The decision is for the Opposition: savannah swillinger

    Reason for Decision:

    Presumption shifted towards the Neg after the second Affirmative speech where the entirety of the Aff case is dropped.

    The neg pointed out a huge legal loophole in how the USFG would determine who would receive reparations.

    The argument that signed the ballot was the neg's argument that reparations stand as a mere payoff for past actions in an attempt to weakly solve racism. And that it's also perpetuated through a structural dehumanization of those who would receive the reparations.


    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