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: Amanda Gerstman (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Emanuel Kamali (Binghamton University)

Judge: Josh Cangelosi (San Diego Christian College)

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

  • Amanda Gerstman
    Amanda Gerstman
    vs.



    Emanuel Kamali
    Emanuel Kamali
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 19, 2015 03:50:59PM EST by Amanda Gerstman

    Citations

    Show

    Twelve Years a Slave
    http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/t/twelve-years-a-slave/book-summary
    Food Stamps:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

    Posted at October 20, 2015 11:02:26PM EST by Emanuel Kamali

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 21, 2015 04:16:36PM EST by Amanda Gerstman

    Citations

    Show

    Poverty Rate
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/news/economy/median-income-poverty-rate-down-census/

    VP Franklin
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/race-and-reparations

    Posted at October 23, 2015 01:08:34AM EST by Emanuel Kamali

    Citations

    Show

    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

    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 23, 2015 07:04:31PM EST by Amanda Gerstman

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    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
    Delivery skill: 4.4 4.2
    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.


    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