PC wins over substance; all girl black debate team wins by NOT debating the given topic

a reply to: Grambler

You might be the best person to answer this then: what the hell was all that "ah, aha, ah" crap the girls were doing?

The first "unofficial" rule of political debate is to never answer the question asked. Answer the question you know. The question you want to answer. All political caucuses tell first-time candidates to do this, regardless of party affiliation.

Even our beloved Libertarians teach their candidates to manipulate discourse, manage information and (in many cases) outright lie. I know from personal experience, which is why I've given up political participation. It's a filthy habit.

If the goal of the debate class is to teach participants how to debate in a contemporary political forum, then the instructor is doing his (or her, who cares) job pretty well, actually.

Bravo.

originally posted by: InvisibleOwl
a reply to: Grambler

You might be the best person to answer this then: what the hell was all that "ah, aha, ah" crap the girls were doing?

Its a filler. They are talking faster than they can think. Its like saying "um" or other such things in normal conversation.

You receive absolutely no benefit for "sounding good" and so as any observer would tell you this is poor sounding in a speech, it is unpunished in debate. You try to get as many arguments in as fast as you can, hence these debaters needs for the Ahs or ums.

a reply to: FortAnthem

This doesn't surprise me at all. The tactic of changing the subject to avoid facing facts is one widely practiced these days by many in politics and the media. I see this as an admission that the side changing the subject has no argument to counter the other side, so they want to change the focus.

originally posted by: gusdynamite
This is slightly off-topic, but I think relevant. I am a 35 year old adult university student in Melbourne, Australia and tomorrow morning, I have an appointment to speak with a student counsellor. This will be the first in a few steps which will hopefully put me on a path to change my undergraduate bachelor degree - I'm currently majoring in different social sciences.

This is only my second year, I'm mid-way through the first semester and since late last year I have been having that burning, gut instinct that something isn't right. I began wondering why - for the first time in my life - I was experiencing white guilt (Having been born and raised in New Zealand and naturalized Australian at 23 I simply had never been exposed to the concept of white guilt, or even what much of the rest of the world might traditionally deem as racism).

My Mum asked me what the matter was over my visit at Christmas, as she could see signs which I didn't realise were so externally obvious. The best I could tell her was that I was so stressed out, because feeling like a rich, white, paedophile. Many child abuse incidents have come to light in NZ recently and thus, my relationship with my own Nephew and Nieces was forced to change - if only to protect myself. This never-the-less gutted me and broke my heart.

I explained to Mum that if i was forced to stay in a degree course simply because I was now obligated to pay for it, that I would use every ounce of my strength once graduated to advocate for men's rights. She was curious, but I think she understood where I was going and I explain to her exactly this: Universities are not for learning, they are for indoctrinating. Mum, it is a daily, constant battle to filter out the militant degradation of men by the mostly female faculty - but sometimes even by the males. Heaven forbid one should be male and white, because you're expected by default to despise your own ancestry and heritage.

These people have no idea of my heritage or whether I belong to a particular minority - they make huge assumptions and have replace lectures with powerpoint presented instructions on how to address yours' and others' rich, white male shortcomings.

I wanted to work in a role where I could advocate for everyone. I wanted to put aside any prejudice I had previously entertained and be of assistance to all who came to me for it. I wanted to be taught how to do this - because that is what universities are for, right?

Wrong, not anymore.

If anyone's bothered to make it this far, I hope you don't come away from reading and think that I'm just another rich, white, privileged male with a chip on his shoulder - please consider the case may be the complete opposite. I only wanted to give a personal ( as personal as possible without...you know) account of my own experiences within the education system here and that I believe our youth are not being taught, but brainwashed.

Yes but that's Australia, where some bizarre attitudes can be accepted into the general psych without any logical questions being asked. the men hating Lesbians have established themselves close to seats of power and are doing their best to frame legislation and attitudes. The normalisation of same sex marriage is one example, where a civil partnership would have sufficed. This form of social lobbying tends to be liberal or left wing in nature. When there are no more male teachers, they will have completed one of their aims. Because all males are Pedos. incidentally most would have you believe that they are all survivors of abuse of the varied kind available. Probably mentioning their hairy armpits, could be construed as requesting termination, these types will also have a lot to say about how the native populations need funding and help getting over colonial oppression., and seeing that they themselves have had a lot of abuse to contend with they would be well placed to administer any money available to these social programs. Since they are fairly radical its best to give them some doe to be getting on with, and be keeping an eye on them, if they go to far funding can be used as a control lever. Poor men, programed to hunt p#@$y don't stand a chance.

a reply to: FortAnthem
Not even sure what to say , mostly unintelligible to me, anyhow these are the rules that should have been applied to determine the winner of a Cross Examination debate, not sure about whether it is for a freestyle debate, honestly if they studied for it in advance I thought freestyle is pretty much, just that, off the top of your head no advance hint or warning, they obviously know how to communicate in normal conversation but I have never witnessed anything like this, no pun, but I am speechless.

Cross Examination Debate Rules

a reply to: FortAnthem

With future leaders like this the black culture will remain slaves. That's right I said it......Slaves. The chains they wear today are all self imposed and reinforced with generation after generation buying into the progressive mindset.



TPTB knew Mr. King would lead the masses in another direction and after his murder the black race has fallen apart from the inside out. Race is not an issue........Wrap your minds around that and raise you kids to believe it. If you don't I hope you chains fall lightly upon your collective shoulders.

Perhaps the saddest part is that they took the debate, made it their own and i (personally) couldnt understand i word they were saying except the flutter of "Nigga, white, black"

Surely in a debate tournament you are marked on how you get your point across? If its incoherent due to the nature of how you actually speak it, it cant be counted!?

This is silly.

All I see when listening to that debate is victims. Victims of a destructive culture. Victims of an academic system that's aware of this but sees it as racist to address. Victims of a world which tells them they're great and that they're above the rules because of their skin color and gender.

As for the actual substance of their arguments, it's one thing to debate a topic that isn't even relevant to the point being debated. It's another entirely to do it poorly like they did.

a reply to: Grambler

"The debate community is an example of people that are so arrogant and insular that they are a joke to any outsider, but the still have an air of superiority over everyone else. "


You just described almost every academic I have ever meet.

originally posted by: FortAnthem

That's right folks; demanding actual substance and fact finding in our debates is racist and intolerant. We must embrace the diversity, no matter how much it dumbs down the next generation. I'd hate to see what debates in congress or the UN will look like when this generation comes into power.

Is it possible that their strategy was acting as if they were uneducated African Americans? In order to further prove the points they were trying to make and show what the system is designed to do, in their opinion. How the system is designed to program certain people to ACT, SOUND and think a certain way? Is it possible?

The debate was supposed to be based on Presidential war powers. They decided to talk about the governments war on African American youth. Whether that's a no-no in these types of debate, I'm not the one to say, but I think they did a great job getting across the point that THEY wanted to make.

They sounded much different during the debate than they did when they were on fox. Which is what led me to believe that they sounded different as their strategy. I understood them perfectly in both cases.

Kudos and congratulations to them.

CEDA is basically a speed ranting competition : check out homegirl at 14:00.
Dont see how sex, ethnicity or political correctness apply in a situation where ranting without reply is encouraged.

a reply to: gusdynamite

As a fellow Kiwi who is part Maori and Slav. I will tell you one thing..... Do not feel guilty over our past. We all came here to escape something. But doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

My Maori ancestors came here to escape sub tribe slavery and cannibalism.

My European ancestors came here to escape the class system that would keep them peasants.


The US issue.... The African Kings sold their own sub class people into slavery. Which is why the victim mentality is literately in their bones. They were being treated like slaves for a thousand years before slavery became a commercial reality.

I see the same thing in NZ with Indians from a lower caste system. I have to convince them NZ is not like that. But the persistent idea they are not as good as me remains.

It is infuriating. And you are right, they are trying to do the same thing to you by way of displaced guilt.


If you come back to NZ. Come visit.

Frist of all.... I only understand "uh uh ah oh 'n-word' uh oh ah 'n-word'" during that footage.
No idea if I am allowed to post these words though, since you in America call this offensive even though they use them themselves.
edit: apparently I am not allowed to write these word since they get censored, poor ATS really poor

So what is special about an "all-black" team winning?
I mean if an "all-turkish" team here in Germany would win something like this, nobody would care more than normally.
You seriously have some issues in America.
Through giving that a special feature, because both of them were black, it shows how unintegrated black people are in your society.
This is racism. Positive racsism, does not change the fact that it is racism.

originally posted by: aLLeKs
Frist of all.... I only understand "uh uh ah oh 'n-word' uh oh ah 'n-word'" during that footage.
No idea if I am allowed to post these words though, since you in America call this offensive even though they use them themselves.
edit: apparently I am not allowed to write these word since they get censored, poor ATS really poor

So what is special about an "all-black" team winning?
I mean if an "all-turkish" team here in Germany would win something like this, nobody would care more than normally.
You seriously have some issues in America.
Through giving that a special feature, because both of them were black, it shows how unintegrated black people are in your society.
This is racism. Positive racsism, does not change the fact that it is racism.

Because the academic definition of racism isn't just that a distinction is made based on race, but that the person making that race based decision holds some power over the persons life. It's an important difference because an oppressed minority by this definition cannot be racist due to their lack of power over others.

Agree with that definition or not, that's how it is and that's why academic institutions make the rules that they do. A profanity laced tirade talking about how the white devil keeps them down in a war on African Americans is not racist, because those making the point aren't in governmental/academic positions of power. Consequently this also means that disqualifying them is racist. So they only thing left is to judge their argument, even though it doesn't apply to the topic of the debate at all.

Hurr Derp, theys using strange words and speech patterns I can't understand theys unamerican and should have lost. reply to: FortAnthem

What a waste of time this is! Mumbling a bunch of crap as fast as you can or rapping 2pac songs! My word... lol

Damn, so gutted I didn't go to uni (or college for that matter), look at what I missed out on... I'm shocked that this passes for a debate... I was left open mouthed...

Meh they'll be in government soon where they chat non-sense at a slower pace for us thickos to understand... Yay...

This is a must watch video. McKenna describes how we have reached a point where we can no longer expose the idiocy that's flourishing in our community. By being politically correct, polite, open minded, and embracing "relativism", we allowed this insanity to gain a foothold, and now it's become commonplace.

I did a bit more looking into this.... Well, actually, I did quite a bit more looking into it, for my own satisfaction and curiosity. I'm a college student transferring up to a University in the very near future to build on an AA, and some may have noticed...I kinda like debating.

After spending some time reading a bit back into this story, I definitely have a couple other things to add.

First, the side of America that represents is something foreign to my experience in day to day life and with the language (without regard around here to who is using it), just wouldn't be tolerated. I'm not sure I know of any schools in this area that would. I saw where some of this is the norm, in the travelling of my first career. Still, I was just curious on this..

It seems CEDA wasn't created to be like this. They weren't intended to be...and the 'transformation' (as the only thing I can think to call it), while it was still in progress, was stark.

First, terms are important. Forensics wasn't a term I was familiar with in this context. I thought of forensics as medically related or soft sciences/sociology. It's communications related. This is a Forensics program within the communications school at the University of Texas at Austin.

Then I found a book with some history of CEDA, SCEDA and others in what they were and had been designed around the idea of. That...err..wasn't it.

Forensics in America: A History

According to the book, they were made around the idea of cross examination in debate and being open to novices and casual debaters, which is interesting, as I found. This kind, I wouldn't mind being a part of to explore.



LD Debate National Championship Finals (2007) (Cross Examination Style)

CEDA's Main Page makes it easy to see that the one in the book is the same as the one today and which the thread is about. This amount, so far, isn't what would ever really get my attention. Organizations change, and things evolve. The degree of change is notable though. In poking around their site a bit, I found some interesting things that did get my attention. On the page of recent things passed by membership...

Bylaw V. Section 11. Add the following: "The preference system must include a method to affirmatively place women in judging assignments. If a tournament director is unable or otherwise precluded from affirmatively placing women in judging assignments, the tournament director may appeal to the CEDA Executive Council for tournament sanctioning."

Source Page

That's followed by one specifically for minority judges. Minority Judging

Now if we think about it for a moment...That pretty much covers the entire population but for..Oh, one specific group. I suppose that's okay these days though, and times are changing. Err... (I'm pinching, and not waking..so not dreaming.. Err..) I also found something as interesting, given all the context here.

Professional Conduct Amendment (Passed 2009)

It gives old version then new version of what was changed in a pretty major revision. For instance, added was the "deep respect for freedom of expression" in the preamble. Deleted was a quick few lines about the old version of professional conduct being based on standard texts within the industry it was all based on.

Added was a whole bureaucracy (quite literally, too) if anyone is accused of any form of unprofessionalism. Atop that, a level for appeals. While also noting that sanctions cannot be applied until all avenues of appeal (they created from scratch) are exhausted, it leaves open discretion to the people judging it to leave it, after all that, with as small a thing as an verbal reprimand.

The old text? It just said the basic rules weren't open to adjudication and let it at that. I suppose I shouldn't let the little things get to me at school sometimes. Compared to what other areas of the nation are like, they're all fairly small things, really.

Oh, the resolution of the debate?

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

(Source)

I wonder how they came up with that, out of the finals and winners? Ahh well.. That's what might have been interesting to hear.

Just watched the embedded video , If i had to judge a debate and they were talking like that id just fail them or not award any points

I know there is a time limit , but that doesn't sound coherent and is all over the place

I think the regulations on these debates need to be changed so the content is not rushed and it actually sounds like normal humans talking and not rushing their words and sounding like they are having a panic attack