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

We don't do debate with quite the competitive edge you folks do Stateside - but having done it for a few years at school and college, I can assure you this wouldn't fly in the UK.

This said, attempting to subvert the topic is probably a half-decent tactic in a fully competitive debate. Covers deficiencies in your understanding of the prescribed topic if nothing else.

originally posted by: juspassinthru

Sadly, he is still a Representative.........

Am I the only one who burst out laughing when the one guy talked about "chocolate covered watermelons"? I have no idea what his point was though.

Don't know if it's been posted...This is the BEST commentary about CEDA..

[youtube]NrK1a-MT-VI[/youtube]

Thanks Bob! I was just trying to figure it out. I is smart

Disgusting.

They should of been disqualified for not debating the topic!

Think your debate teams need some ATS mods to keep them on topic

originally posted by: BanTv
Don't know if it's been posted...This is the BEST commentary about CEDA..

NrK1a-MT-VI

a reply to: BanTv

Well that was unexpected and hilarious.

originally posted by: InvisibleOwl
Am I the only one who burst out laughing when the one guy talked about "chocolate covered watermelons"? I have no idea what his point was though.

and fried chicken....can't forget the fried chicken...

i don't know wtf they were on about, but it sounded more like some kind of bizarre performance art piece, than a debate...

originally posted by: crazyewok
Disgusting.

They should of been disqualified for not debating the topic!

Think your debate teams need some ATS mods to keep them on topic

they should have been disqualified the moment the word ni**er passed their lips, as at that point, they lost all credibility as serious debaters..

This is absolutely sickening to say the least. People like this want to claim how "oppressed" they are, yet they perpetuate racism themselves. There are just as many black people who hate white people as there are white people who hate black people. The bottom line is the achievement of legal equality. THAT is ALL that can be done. You cannot expect to go change the opinions of every person in America. It won't happen.

Yet why do we only ever hear one side of the argument? I don't hear white people complaining en masse about the existence of such groups as the NAACP, which IS a racist group if you look at the simple fact that, well, it excludes all but black people. Is that not racism? If someone went and created an all-white national group you could bet your house on the fact that it would be attacked en masse.

Just as an example, a certain race claims they want equality, but this is not the case. Equality has been legally achieved. There is no argument there. But when it is beneficial, non-equality is okay. For instance, affirmative action. Now to the heart of the case. I will tell you exactly why these girls won, even though clearly they did not follow the rules of debate, considering they did not even debate the correct topic...They won because the judges were probably white, and they knew the backlash they could potentially receive from not allowing them to win.

Think that is far-fetched. Hardly. It is common knowledge that white people basically go out of their way to keep from being labelled racist by the black community. It is much more widespread than one would probably imagine. Sure, some people don't care, but many do. That is why they let things slide like this. But the inconsistency comes in at this point, because that is NOT equality. Equality is simply that...equal. How is getting certain advantages equality?

And if people want to complain about the inner city and low income for blacks, this has nothing to do with equality. Like I said, equality is something that is achieved legally. Racism is something that exists on both sides, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Just because there are a lot of poor black people does not mean that equality is non-existent, because there are many poor white people too, as well as people of other races.

So if there is something going on within the government, federal, state, or local, where say the funding for black schools is lower than that for white schools or something, then THAT is what black people should be uniting to fight. There should not be people and groups who wish to run around and cry racism at every turn, any time something happens between two people of different races. THAT just further perpetuates racism.

a reply to: FortAnthem

And then everyone comes to ATS and looks for debate, in a regular conversation.

You hear it all the time, those with bad grammar always screeching "Logical fallacy" as though this were all about debate, and then dictate to you that this is some sort of formal debate and you have violated some PC honored code about all forums being a debate. ATS has a formal debate forum that is interesting to read but not many people utilize that.

Every forum on the internet is supposed to be the new debate, even in comment sections such as on youtube. And it's nothing more than "You just disagreed with me, blasphemous troll" and then when you do present facts, suddenly you have become a shill, on every social media site.

These ladies are no more than just a reflection of society who chooses to disregard all the rules, because rules are made to be broken, that's what we have heard for a long time. Oh, how I wish that when people are "debating", they would at least use proper grammar. That's what I had to do in school.

I really don't think I will "debate" with people who continually and flagrantly misuse your and you're. I think they do it on purpose, because in the same "debate" they also purposefully misuse their, there and they're. Then they tell us that they aren't concerned about grammar because they aren't academics. Excuse me, but to be an academic means you invested time and energy into actually learning something while in school. That's what was expected of my generation.

When I was in the third grade, we had to use those words properly and in the correct context. There was no debate with the teachers and we could not just rant about not receiving a good grade for our poor performance. It had been said that the average reading level for 12th grade students is actually 5th grade level. But these same "geniuses" fly off the handle when you correct them on grammar, but if grammar is not important anymore, then why should anything else be?

It just seems that some people have learned a new word and can't wait to throw it out there, which they usually just end up spouting parroted remarks. Since when did parroting and rant equate critical thinking? Blah, meh, go read a classic book then come back and tell us what you have learned. Might I suggest War And Peace? That's a big book, takes time and effort, but at least you will have accomplished something useful. I read the novel when I was 13 years-old. That's it, no one is reading classics, except for Batman and Anime comic books.

Having grown up in Detroit where segregation was forced since the 1960s, this is no surprise. Many fine schools quickly had to change their curriculum to accommodate african-americans. The result was education that catered to the lowest common denominator. If intelligent white or black kids wanted an education, they had to go to private schools.

Democracy depends upon civilized people--without an education system that works, our country is doomed.

a reply to: InvisibleOwl

I have no idea. I didn't see the war powers act discussed at all, much less debated. However, on the CEDA web site under their resolutions/amendments for current items? It indicates the quoted outcome on that issue.

That's where I got to thinking they decided it outside whatever happened at the debate. Perhaps well before it began.

Can't even trust a debate anymore. Hmmmm.... I wonder if this is how the Romans felt toward the end? Great knowledge and potential, shot for great sloth and vanity.......sometimes both these days.

a reply to: FortAnthem


All kidding aside.

What language was that in because I didn't understand anything.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yeah, but I did both debate and forensics in high school, and they were separate disciplines. Forensics was more drama and speech oriented. Debate was a formalized argument format organized around a series of closing and opening arguments and cross-examinations. The closest thing forensics had to this was extemporaneous speaking which our best debators often did. They would draw a set of topics, choose one, and have a set amount of time in which to create a five minute speech on the subject. They were expected to use supporting factual material in their talks and often used their debate briefs and large files at every forensics tourney.

Clearly, this CEDA thing is completely new format.

a reply to: FortAnthem

I had to think about this debate for some hours, beyond the surface, there is something more here and the real message has nothing to do with the debate, the message is the topic of The War Powers Act, I look beyond the surface of this debate, this has everything to do with Drones and use against citizens, not just black but any citizens, this is the veiled message that is being sent, because everyone will be talking about the surface, and missing the real message here.

I didn't get a chance to look through all the threads, but I would hope maybe someone else thought about this ?

a reply to: BobAthome

Wow! Profanity warning please. My 3-year-old was in the room ...



Yeah, so apparently "reason" and "logic" are now "white privilege" and "racist?"

I have a question ... Does this explain what's wrong with Africa? Not enough "white privilege?"

That video is ... maybe that guy needs to check his white guilt at the door and think about what he's saying again.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's the real surprise of it when I looked into it. (Check my earlier post for the links). If you look at the Professional Conduct Standards with the Before/After versions of revision inside the same document, you see some removal of references to the Forensics Teachers and Instructors, as well as the Professional organizations they based their code of conduct on. To read CEDA documents, they were founded and you could almost say, chartered to support and serve the forensics community as much as and perhaps before anything else.

That, of course, was before the revisions a few years ago, and ..goodness...it sure became a WHOLE new thing, didn't it?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: ketsuko

That's the real surprise of it when I looked into it. (Check my earlier post for the links). If you look at the Professional Conduct Standards with the Before/After versions of revision inside the same document, you see some removal of references to the Forensics Teachers and Instructors, as well as the Professional organizations they based their code of conduct on. To read CEDA documents, they were founded and you could almost say, chartered to support and serve the forensics community as much as and perhaps before anything else.

That, of course, was before the revisions a few years ago, and ..goodness...it sure became a WHOLE new thing, didn't it?

So debate now is a free-for-all?

In my day, that would have been called a protest.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well, like another member who has apparently been on the inside of this 'business' spoke about? It's a very effective thing and very productive set of tactics they are using . . . in the short term.

In the long term? Well....What do you do when no one shows up to your performance art, calling itself a debate? I guess the passionate ones to that side can perform at each other...but audiences won't be entertained for long, on top of a lack of real opposition to give debate meaning.

So..I suppose in that way? It's a self cleaning oven for the problem. It's just on a rather long and miserable cook cycle to see the ratios shift enough to make it unsustainable.

At least...that's one theory.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BobAthome

Wow! Profanity warning please. My 3-year-old was in the room ...

Unfortunately, its damn near impossible to get across the current debating standards without a heavy dose of foul language. It appears that cursing and derogatory racist terminology (that only one race is allowed to use without being condemned) are the norm when it comes to modern collegiate debate.

I was going to post some vids of President Camacho from Idiocracy to show how similar his speeches were to what was presented at that debate but knew they would be a T&C violation if posted directly here.

I hope posting links to them along with a warning about profanity and extreme violence will be allowable.

Warning: extreme profanity and violence

Only click on the link if you are in a NSF environment with no sensitive kid ears present.

President Camacho Addresses the Nation

President Camacho-The Election

It looks to me like CEDA may have lifted their debating rules directly from the Idiocracy scriptwriters.