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: Laurie Chang (San Diego Forensics) vs. Opposition: Linda Abid (Binghamton University)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

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

  • Laurie Chang
    Laurie Chang
    vs.



    Linda Abid
    Linda Abid
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 19, 2015 11:11:12PM EST by Laurie Chang

    Citations

    Show

    J Angelo Corallett- Heirs of oppression
    everydaydebate.blogspot.com

    Posted at October 21, 2015 02:25:43AM EST by Linda Abid

    Citations

    Show

    Article: Getting to Reparations: Japanese Americans and African Americans

    Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, 2004, the University of North Carolina Press

    Source URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_forces/v083/83.2howard.html

    Posted at October 22, 2015 12:25:50AM EST by Laurie Chang

    Citations

    Show

    J Angelo Coralette Heirs of oppression

    Posted at October 22, 2015 08:49:30PM EST by Linda Abid

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 23, 2015 09:21:28PM EST by Laurie Chang

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 27, 2015 09:45:39PM EST by David Kane

    Category Laurie Chang Linda Abid
    Use of evidence: 3 3
    Delivery skill: 3.3 4
    Coherence of arguments: 3 4
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2.8 3.3
    Identification of key points: 3.2 3.4
    Comments: You spent too much time getting caught up in the margins of the debate, and ignored the core. E.g. in the late rebuttal, you spent time discussing the quality of your citation and the 32nd-39th second of your constructive, buy you spent no time discussing the core of the opposition argument that the identification of people to compensate and the connection to their current condition were too long and complex.

    I thought you did a nice turn of the opposition counter-plan, although it would have been better if you had made the really clear argument about that from your second rebuttal in the first.

    The proposition generally has some slack in the first rebuttal to add some argument or information in response to the opposition constructive. However, you don't generally want to wait until the first rebuttal to offer some core detail about what you are proposing.

    You definition of African Americans was weak. First it was self-referential. Second, it didn't really address your opponent's critique.

    For the record, in rewatching the 32nd - 39th seconds of the proposition constructive, if I listen closely I can hear the "d" of "used" but I can also see how it would be easily missed.
    At one point, it seemed like you were doing a lot of nit-picking on the opponents case, it ended up working to your advantage because your opponent spent a lot of time responding to the nits, while leaving your core ideas untouched.

    I thought your counter-plan was weak. There was nothing to prevent it being added on to whatever the proposition was suggesting. Further, you didn't offer much elaboration as to why it was a suitable counter-plan until your rebuttal. (That was somewhat ironic, since you spent some of your rebuttal time complaining about the fairness of the introduction of new arguments in the first proposition rebuttal)

    I thought the second half of your rebuttal was a bit repetitive.

    For the record, in rewatching the 32nd - 39th seconds of the proposition constructive, if I listen closely I can hear the "d" of "used" but I can also see how it would be easily missed.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Linda Abid

    Reason for Decision:

    The opposition won largely on the strength of the arguments around the difficulty and complexity of reparations. This argument which lead the opposition constructive, was never effectively refuted. There was a lot of noise in the debate about language, and sources, and such, but that was on the periphery.


    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