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 20, 2015 01:38:01AM EST by Jeffrey Twitty
"The Case For Reparations." Coates, Ta-Nehisi. 2014.
"Reparations for Decendants of Enslaved Africans: What's Psychology Got to do With it?" McMillan, Michael. 2011.
Posted at October 21, 2015 02:55:32AM EST by Andrew Seo
My citations are here:
Posted at October 22, 2015 12:23:43AM EST by Jeffrey Twitty
Forty Acres and a Mule in the 21st Century
William Darity, Jr. and William A. Darrity, Jr.
Social Science Quarterly
Vol. 89, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2008) , pp. 656-664
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42956508
Posted at October 23, 2015 10:21:06AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 23, 2015 11:15:59PM EST by Jeffrey Twitty
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at November 3, 2015 12:07:44AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Jeffrey Twitty||Andrew Seo|
|Use of evidence:||4.5||3.4|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||3.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4.5||4|
|Identification of key points:||3.2||3.4|
|Comments:||I like how you open your speech. Very rhetorically powerful. Also good use of cites. I don't love your capitalism provides the solution to problems arguments. I also think $13 billion seems a little low. I do like the way you go about getting the funds for the reparations. Do you have any authors who back up that mechanism? Or did you just come up with it? Also, you could impact out why othernization is bad more than you do. Good job with your segregation arguments.
Good job pointing out how the land and mules were never given out. I like the personal touch you provide in the speech as well. I wish you did some video editing to eliminate the echo in your speech. I also wish you had better lighting so I could see your face more. Overall, good job responding to the opposition's points.
|Again, you need more citations for the arguments you're making. I also don't think your definitions of terms in this debate help you. Some of your terms I think helps set up the proposition since they just have to prove they "ought" to be be paid; not that they "should." A lot of your objections are about the details of giving reparations and not against the moral maxim of paying reparations. I like your increased racism argument in regards of providing offense against the proposition. The land and mule payment was never made in the end.
Again, point out what's dropped. Also you define reparations at the start as monetary payments so I'm not sure how that definition jives with your argument that abolition is reparations. I'm not sure what you're doing with your criminal argument.
The decision is for the Opposition: Andrew Seo
Reason for Decision:
The proposition lost in the last video since you spend too much time answering the bad defensive arguments the opposition made and not going back to your harms in your opening speech. To win the prop needed to extend reasons for why reparations should be paid and not just respond to some of the holes the opposition is poking. Further, the one offensive argument that the opposition makes (paying reparations will increase racism) isn't answered at all in the prop's last speech. That makes it easy to vote for the opp since the prop's plan will cause more racism rather than solve it. I think there were good answers to that argument in the prop rebuttal but those answers don't make it into your closing speech. Your closing speech needs to be explaining why you win the round and not just playing defense against the opposition. I think up until the last speech the opposition doesn't have an overall strategy to negate the paying of reparations. Sadly, the prop's strategy falls apart at the end when he doesn't go back to his main reasons for why they're needed.