Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.
 Minjae Park |
vs.
|
Prince Grant |
| Click to begin | ||
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at October 20, 2015 11:27:17PM EST by Prince Grant
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
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.
Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.
Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:
