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

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: stelth2

I figure that in about 10 years I won’t have a job because I won’t be able to communicate. You see, I can’t speak Ebonics; I won’t be able to say the N word because I’m not black, so I won’t be able to put an Ebonics sentence together. I can’t even rap; I’ll probably need an interpreter to get food stamps, oh wait that could pose a problem, I’m white.
Maybe I can move to England where they speak English! Oh no, that’s not right. England is being overrun by non-English speaking Middle Eastern and Indian immigrants.
By the way, I’m not a racist. If you want to call me one, that’s fine, it seems like that’s the word of the day anyway. I just think that it’s ridiculous that the few can impose their will on the many.

In linguistics, it's called Black Vernacular English. It is a real dialect of English, and it should be respected as such. It isn't society's problem that you cannot understand it, and nor is it the color of your skin that is holding you back from learning it.

Wow! it's this kind of progressive PC logic that has led us to the point where those . . . um . . illiterates won a debate with that gibberish. It's an insult to us all and an assault on us all, especially to the Towson Debate Team.

How to win a debate ---

a reply to: ArJunaBug

Wow! it's this kind of progressive PC logic that has led us to the point where those . . . um . . illiterates won a debate with that gibberish. It's an insult to us all and an assault on us all, especially to the Towson Debate Team.

It's the same thing as calling you illiterate for not understanding what their saying. That's just the way it is.

By the way, illiterate means they cannot read or write.

Is anyone here surprised? If they hadn't one, there would have been a huge backlash pulling the race card once again, calling all sorts of people racist, especially whatever judges they had on hand, and I'm sure multiple people would have lost their jobs.

Politically Correct: 1

Common Sense: 0

I'd also like to point out the obvious oxymoron that is "Politically Correct". I'm sure all us sane people already knew that though.

originally posted by: ArJunaBug

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: stelth2

I figure that in about 10 years I won’t have a job because I won’t be able to communicate. You see, I can’t speak Ebonics; I won’t be able to say the N word because I’m not black, so I won’t be able to put an Ebonics sentence together. I can’t even rap; I’ll probably need an interpreter to get food stamps, oh wait that could pose a problem, I’m white.
Maybe I can move to England where they speak English! Oh no, that’s not right. England is being overrun by non-English speaking Middle Eastern and Indian immigrants.
By the way, I’m not a racist. If you want to call me one, that’s fine, it seems like that’s the word of the day anyway. I just think that it’s ridiculous that the few can impose their will on the many.

In linguistics, it's called Black Vernacular English. It is a real dialect of English, and it should be respected as such. It isn't society's problem that you cannot understand it, and nor is it the color of your skin that is holding you back from learning it.

Wow! it's this kind of progressive PC logic that has led us to the point where those . . . um . . illiterates won a debate with that gibberish. It's an insult to us all and an assault on us all, especially to the Towson Debate Team.

Agreed that "PC Logic" can get carried away...

But I have spent time in Appalachia and the deep south where it was no easy task to understand WTF people were saying.

Shall we have a slam-fest on the peculiarities of speech of that given demographic? Rather than children?

Cuz...at the end of the day, once you get past the "how" of how someone speaks...you can judge them on what they are communicating. Some of the brightest people I have ever met sound like a deep south (what the hell is he saying) hick. Ditto with African American dialect. Ditto with native New Orleans, Appalachia etc. etc.

This whole OP is very poorly veiled racism. It is just ugly and ignorant.

The whole concept that the Weekly Standard would make a story out of some no name debate...Really...you all usually follow the Southwest Cross Examination Debate Association closely??? WTF?

Or was it the "All Girl Black Debate Team" headline that made this news to you?

Why is their color or gender...or even some obscure academic debate National News to conservatives?

Ugly ass ignorance and race baiting....Or would you prefer I use more sophisticated language?...Pathetic, thinly veiled racism and race baiting aimed at emoting deep seeded racist tendencies amongst some within the conservative base with the internet providing an anonymous outlet for sentiments that have become increasingly socially unacceptable.

originally posted by: Words


In linguistics, it's called Black Vernacular English. It is a real dialect of English, and it should be respected as such. It isn't society's problem that you cannot understand it, and nor is it the color of your skin that is holding you back from learning it.

In a academic debate they should all be speaking the same language and same dialect. Shall I enter a debate and speak Russian?

Plus does not excuse the fact they didn't actually cover the topic in the debate.

a reply to: crazyewok

In a academic debate they should all be speaking the same language and same dialect. Shall I enter a debate and speak Russian?

Plus does not excuse the fact they didn't actually cover the topic in the debate.

Dialects of english are still english.

I am not excusing their debate practices.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Or was it the "All Girl Black Debate Team" headline that made this news to you?

Oh man, this reminded me of this genius clip from Bill Burr. I gotta admit, I'm running out of white guilt myself.

originally posted by: Words


Dialects of english are still english.

But in a academic setting it should one dialect used.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Words


In linguistics, it's called Black Vernacular English. It is a real dialect of English, and it should be respected as such. It isn't society's problem that you cannot understand it, and nor is it the color of your skin that is holding you back from learning it.

In a academic debate they should all be speaking the same language and same dialect. Shall I enter a debate and speak Russian?

Plus does not excuse the fact they didn't actually cover the topic in the debate.

Two very well made points, Ewok.

It does get tiresome that, whenever you present a valid and well thought out criticism, the first counter is always "racism."

When one is in a debate, eloquence and mastery of the language should be part of the issue.

a reply to: Indigo5

that's one way of looking at it....

and then there's the sensible, and more realistic way of looking at this...i shall explain it thusly:

regardless of color, they were jibbering incoherently, whilst hyperventilating....it almost sounded as if they were speaking in tongues....this is not debate, this is aural chaos.

they did not address the given topic, and instead went off on some tangential rant about how oppressed black people are.

they used profanity, and the word ni**er....this is also not suitable for legitimate debate.

political correctness kicks in when you factor in that likely the only reason they won was BECAUSE they're black, and it would have become a national story, complete with cries of racism and discrimination, had they been disqualified for NOT debating the topic, and using inappropriate language.

the facts would have been lost in the hyperbole, and idiotic fervor that always surrounds media-manufactured instances of "racism"...for a good example of this, take a look at the debate regarding the alleged "racist" comments made by cliven bundy...that was a media-manufactured instance of "racism", where a small segment of a statement was taken out of context, and used to give the appearance of "racism", where none existed.

of course, the possibility also exists that the CEDA judges are ACTUALLY so completely retarded, that they thought it was a good mumbled rant, OR...and this is even worse, but not implausible, given the quality of some of the other excerpts i saw....it's possible that their lunatic ramblings were actually the best of the bunch.....

any way you slice it, the whole thing is completely idiotic..

The a reply to: Indigo5

The OP is not racist. This isn't about the color of THEIR skin, it's about turning proper debate into rants you can't understand and have no rules. The white CEDA debates are just as ridiculous.

The racism is coming from the PC/white guilt/SJW/progressive side. It's racist to say the students who want proper debate can't do so because they happen to be white. THAT is racism.

Please read this White Racism?

a reply to: FortAnthem

They're not debating, they're practicing to become future television fine print voice-over specialists.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly as we both know its important that in academia you communicate clearly.

At least in medicine and biology anyway. When you have a multidisciplinary project its important all documents and communication is done clearly or it creates a headache.

I speak my own local dialect but when doing my Biology degree and when on the clock I accept I have to use the same English that everyone else would be expected to use.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly as we both know its important that in academia you communicate clearly.

At least in medicine and biology anyway. When you have a multidisciplinary project its important all documents and communication is done clearly or it creates a headache.

I speak my own local dialect but when doing my Biology degree and when on the clock I accept I have to use the same English that everyone else would be expected to use.

Especially for university students. They are supposed to be getting an education and proper use of the Language, be it English or Mandarin, is part of a proper University Education. If one is not expected to expand one's self beyond one's "cultural dialect" what is the point of going to university?

originally posted by: NavyDoc


Especially for university students. They are supposed to be getting an education and proper use of the Language, be it English or Mandarin, is part of a proper University Education. If one is not expected to expand one's self beyond one's "cultural dialect" what is the point of going to university?

Yup university is not the time or place to confine oneself to ones niche subculture.

originally posted by: Daedalus

regardless of color, they were jibbering incoherently, whilst hyperventilating....it almost sounded as if they were speaking in tongues....this is not debate, this is aural chaos.

This is common practice for academic debate. To enter as much as possible into the record...speed talking and hyperventilating are regular practice...

originally posted by: Daedalus

they did not address the given topic

That has nothing to do with color or gender or dialect. That is a tactic that is used regularly in debate academically, politically and here on ATS...and?....

originally posted by: Daedalus
and instead went off on some tangential rant about how oppressed black people are.

And?...Is this thread about whether or not black people remain oppressed? And if so, how much and to what extent?
It wasn't my impression that was the debate being had on this thread?

If you take issue with the assertation that black people are oppressed...then that is a different debate apart from their tactic or speech...and a much larger and complex topic.

originally posted by: Daedalus
they used profanity, and the word ni**er....this is also not suitable for legitimate debate.

Agreed, but that is my opinion...and there has actually been a long-time "debate" on the use of profanity in "debate"...and it is common enough to have warranted several pro-con discussions on the issue...not just a "black thing" and here is an analysis of the issue of profanity in academic debate dating back 20 years..
www.cs.jhu.edu...

originally posted by: Daedalus
political correctness kicks in when you factor in that likely the only reason they won was BECAUSE they're black, and it would have become a national story, complete with cries of racism and discrimination, had they been disqualified for NOT debating the topic, and using inappropriate language.

Full of assumptions and I do not think any of them hold water. academic debate judges most often approach things from a rather vulcan-logic perspective.

We have been given a snippet of context for use in an emotional/race baiting capacity, edited truth to fit a story line....
Show me the whole transcripts and I am confident you will see a very different picture and understand the reasoning of the decision.

originally posted by: Daedalus
the facts would have been lost in the hyperbole, and idiotic fervor that always surrounds media-manufactured instances of "racism"...

Good point...so why do you assume you have the facts? Or are the facts only lost in knee-jerk accusations of racism by the media? But never lost in constructed race-baiting stories by the media (Weekly Standard)

BTW - Prepare yourself for more race-baiting in the coming months...it is a tried and true cultural ploy to divide and galvanize voting bases as elections approach. Obama 08 anyone? Black agenda and terrorist fist-bumps?

originally posted by: Daedalus
for a good example of this, take a look at the debate regarding the alleged "racist" comments made by cliven bundy...that was a media-manufactured instance of "racism", where a small segment of a statement was taken out of context, and used to give the appearance of "racism", where none existed.

Please...I have seen the video, reviewed the transcript...the man is old-school racist and not because he used the word Negro or talked about government subsidies.

originally posted by: Daedalus
of course, the possibility also exists that the CEDA judges are ACTUALLY so completely retarded, that they thought it was a good mumbled rant, OR...and this is even worse, but not implausible, given the quality of some of the other excerpts i saw....it's possible that their lunatic ramblings were actually the best of the bunch.....

any way you slice it, the whole thing is completely idiotic..

Maybe...but far less idiotic than this OP and the attention the media gave it for race baiting purposes...

originally posted by: Indigo5



That has nothing to do with color or gender or dialect. That is a tactic that is used regularly in debate academically, politically and here on ATS...and?....
.

And they should not have won because of that.

Why did they win? Why did spewing dribble that had nothing to do with the topic in question get them a winning place?

Black, white or freaking purple they should not have won, nor should anyone who talks babble in a debate that has no bearing on the topic.

From the Weekly Standard in the OP:

“But in recent years, this white-bread subculture has been embracing “diversity,” with predictable results.”

So the author first categorizes academic as “white bread” and the chooses quotation marks for “diversity”…wink wink for what he means by that…and in case that was too subtle a dog whistle for racists he says…”predictable result”…ya all know what happens when a negro comes to dinner!

originally posted by: Indigo5
This is common practice for academic debate. To enter as much as possible into the record...speed talking and hyperventilating are regular practice...

if that's the whole point, then what in the blue hell is the point of even HAVING a verbal debate?

it's stupid.

That has nothing to do with color or gender or dialect.

i never said it did.

And?...Is this thread about whether or not black people remain oppressed? And if so, how much and to what extent?

It wasn't my impression that was the debate being had on this thread?

If you take issue with the assertation that black people are oppressed...then that is a different debate apart from their tactic or speech...and a much larger and complex topic.

that has like....nothing to do with anything i said....i do give you marks for trying to make it about me though....i see what you did there..

Agreed, but that is my opinion...and there has actually been a long-time "debate" on the use of profanity in "debate"...and it is common enough to have warranted several pro-con discussions on the issue...not just a "black thing" and here is an analysis of the issue of profanity in academic debate dating back 20 years..
www.cs.jhu.edu...

i also never said it was JUST a "black thing"..i only pointed it out, because they did it...

Full of assumptions and I do not think any of them hold water. academic debate judges most often approach things from a rather vulcan-logic perspective.

We have been given a snippet of context for use in an emotional/race baiting capacity, edited truth to fit a story line....
Show me the whole transcripts and I am confident you will see a very different picture and understand the reasoning of the decision.

so you're asserting that had they been disqualified for not debating the topic, and using foul language, that they would not have made a stink, claimed racism, and that the MSM would somehow magically be able to resist the urge to make it a national story?

Good point...so why do you assume you have the facts? Or are the facts only lost in knee-jerk accusations of racism by the media? But never lost in constructed race-baiting stories by the media (Weekly Standard)

i'm talking about the facts, in the context of the theoretical scenario, you nitwit...pay attention

BTW - Prepare yourself for more race-baiting in the coming months...it is a tried and true cultural ploy to divide and galvanize voting bases as elections approach. Obama 08 anyone? Black agenda and terrorist fist-bumps?

agreed, it's very effective....and lol, i remember all that silly stuff too.....too funny...

Please...I have seen the video, reviewed the transcript...the man is old-school racist and not because he used the word Negro or talked about government subsidies.

please yourself...you obviously haven't seen the whole video, or a full transcript...there wasn't anything "racist" about what he said....i could explain why, but you'd likely just call me a name, or tell me i'm full of s**t

Maybe...but far less idiotic than this OP and the attention the media gave it for race baiting purposes...

the only thing idiotic about the OP, was the fact that it was a report of something that actually happened...