Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)
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 19, 2015 03:50:59PM EST by Amanda Gerstman
Twelve Years a Slave
Posted at October 20, 2015 11:02:26PM EST by Emanuel Kamali
None available for this speech.
Posted at October 21, 2015 04:16:36PM EST by Amanda Gerstman
Posted at October 23, 2015 01:08:34AM EST by Emanuel Kamali
Rosen, Rebecca. "Why Is the Black Unemployment Rate So High?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 12 June 2014. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
Constitutional Rights Foundation 2010
Posted at October 23, 2015 07:04:31PM EST by Amanda Gerstman
None available for this speech.
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at October 28, 2015 05:25:57PM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz
|Category||Amanda Gerstman||Emanuel Kamali|
|Use of evidence:||4.3||3.8|
|Coherence of arguments:||4.3||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||4|
|Identification of key points:||4.1||3.9|
|Comments:||Please see the reason for decision for individual comments.||Please see the reason for decision for individual comments.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Amanda Gerstman
Reason for Decision:
Good speaking and debating overall by both debaters. Nice sociable debate. Sorry it took me so long to judge the round.
I'm a little unsure as to how to evaluate the round since the Prop tells two somewhat different stories as to why reparations are warranted. On the one hand, Prop argues that crimes were committed against African Amerians and that these crimes deserve to be rectified. This argument for the legitimacy of reparations is more of a backwards-loooking rights-based approach, which argues that rights violations ought to be rectified. On the other hand, Prop argues that reparations are warranted because they will promote the well-being of African Americans. This is more of a forward-looking consequentialist approach to reparations, which argues that whatever action brings about the best consequences ought to be taken.
In any case, I think Prop is generally winning both lines of argumentation.
In response to Opps argument that other groups have not been given reparations, Prop says that two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, all of those wronged groups ought to be given reparations by the appropriate party as well.
Opp makes the argument that welfare programs (etc.) as the sort that Prop suggests for reparations have not worked in the past, as many African Americans are sill in poverty. And Opp argues that there are other causes for current inequalities. So there is some question as to whether the plan will be able to solve. However, Prop argues that this simply suggests that not enough money has been given to African Americans and that more money will help.
In any case, Opp never supplies any kind of disadvantage to passing the plan, so there is no real reason not to at least try to solve the problem. And there is also the argument that rights violations must be rectified. So whether I evaluate the round from a rights-based approach or from a consequentialist approach, there seems to be no reason not to pass the plan.