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: Minjae Park (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Prince Grant (Binghamton University)

Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)

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

  • Minjae Park
    Minjae Park
    vs.



    Prince Grant
    Prince Grant
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at October 19, 2015 01:26:33PM EST by Minjae Park

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 20, 2015 11:27:17PM EST by Prince Grant

    Citations

    Show

    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 21, 2015 08:48:06PM EST by Minjae Park

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 22, 2015 09:53:46PM EST by Prince Grant

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at October 23, 2015 07:10:12PM EST by Minjae Park

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at October 23, 2015 09:37:14PM EST by David Kane

    Category Minjae Park Prince Grant
    Use of evidence: 2.5 2.5
    Delivery skill: 3.2 3.2
    Coherence of arguments: 2.7 3
    Responsiveness to opponent: 2 3
    Identification of key points: 3 3
    Comments: Your opponent didn't really call you on it, but you were inconsistent in your framing of the debate. In your constructive, you explained that reparations were justified by both slavery and the variety of injustices since. However, in your first rebuttal, you rescoped the reparations to just those who can prove that they were descendants. But if you've narrowed the scope that far, how can you assert such wide-claims that this would end the effects of racism, and that there would no further need for any race-aware programs?

    Be careful about your language. Calling your opponent, or their arguments "ignorant" is rude. This was reflected in your "responsiveness to opponent" ranking.





    You had some strong arguments in your constructive, but you didn't stick with them. You correctly called your opponent on the scope of his plan, but you didn't follow through. How many could really prove their ancestry? Would that be enough to make a difference?

    You were a little repetitive in your constructive. I think you could have expanded the scope of the debate trying to introduce additional arguments in your constructive. Give you opponent more territory to defend.

    I think you could have critiqued your opponent's payment scheme more effectively. (What impact would his cuts have on the African Americans in the military) Further, why would African Americans spending tax money benefit the economy more than the military spending money on the economy.

    You opponent proposed a very modest reparation model. (Just $34 million, based on his projection of military cuts) On the one hand, that probably means your arguments about continuing the cycle of dependency are overblown. On the other hand, it probably means all of the grand claims of benefits your opponent offered probably wouldn't materialize.

    The decision is for the Opposition: Prince Grant

    Reason for Decision:

    The decision goes to the opposition on the grounds that the proposition never provided a convincing argument connecting the proposal with the outcomes. The proposition raised systemic institutional problems with racism (e.g. discussion of the failures in the education system in the proposition constructive), and the opposition came back to this in the opposition rebuttal that the proposition does not address the root causes. The opposition even seems to concede this point on a couple occasions saying that even if these is not a big impact recipients could "pay rent" and "survive". The proposition suggested a very modest program ($34 million per the first rebuttal and thousands of $ per recipient in the second rebuttal) that seem out of line with the grand impacts asserted.


    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