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: Andrew Seo (San Diego Forensics) vs. Opposition: Rachel Lackow (Binghamton University)

Judge: Khea Rodrigo (Stanford University)

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

  • Andrew Seo
    Andrew Seo

    Rachel Lackow
    Rachel Lackow
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 20, 2015 01:32:10AM EST by Andrew Seo



    All my sources are here:

    Posted at October 20, 2015 11:15:04PM EST by Rachel Lackow


    Show (my opponents piece of evidence showing disparity of what should be payed.)

    Howard-Hassman, Rhoda, 2007, African Studies Review

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

    Posted at October 22, 2015 09:04:36AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 22, 2015 10:19:26PM EST by Rachel Lackow



    David Horowitz

    Who and What You Are: Sangyoub Park

    What Should We Call People? Race, Class, and the Census for 2000
    Harold L. Hodgkinson
    The Phi Delta Kappan
    Vol. 77, No. 2 (Oct., 1995), pp. 173-176, 178-179

    Double-Checking the Race Box: Examining Inconsistency between Survey Measures of Observed and Self-Reported Race
    Aliya Saperstein
    Social Forces
    Vol. 85, No. 1 (Sep., 2006), pp. 57-74

    Institutionalized Racism: An Analytic Approach
    Robert E. Klitgaard
    Journal of Peace Research
    Vol. 9, No. 1 (1972), pp. 41-49

    Posted at October 24, 2015 11:10:09AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz



    None available for this speech.


    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 24, 2015 12:24:06PM EST by Khea Rodrigo

    Category Andrew Seo Rachel Lackow
    Use of evidence: 5 2
    Delivery skill: 4 2
    Coherence of arguments: 4 3.5
    Responsiveness to opponent: 6 4.5
    Identification of key points: 5 5
    Comments: Your speaking improved by a lot you are much more clear now.

    I really like your analogies.

    Your plan was not an altogether good one, but you pulled through, and you cancelled your opponent's plan.
    The reason you got very low points for your speaker points is because I just could not hear you clearly. Going fast is okay with me. I'm a policy debater, and I like to spread too. However, you can't go fast if you don't have a clear tone.

    You dropped many points Andrew made in his Rebuttal speech.

    Try not to go overtime. Andrew gave me the choice whether to think of this as an instance of abuse of the tournament rules or disregard the seconds. I took it as a instance of abuse.

    Your counterplan was very very weak. Andrew has a great point about that analogy about the mother and son, and that destroyed your whole counter plan.

    If you don't have a counter-plan, then all you are doing is criticizing him, so no matter what Andrew wins.

    The decision is for the Proposition: Andrew Seo

    Reason for Decision:

    The reasons are in the comments section above.

    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: