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

a reply to: Aazadan
At face value I have to take your words as true - I didn't realise that was the case. However, 'oppressed' is a loaded word and aside from that one wee thing and please forgive my ignorance of life in the USA or if I'm being insensitive - can white people turn the tables on that standard and use it if they also feel oppressed?

ladies and gentlemen, i believe i have found the source of their research for the debate....it was tough, but i think i've got it..

BEHOLD!




on a serious note, what they said(that i could understand) had NOTHING to do with the topic...they just ranted like lunatics, about...nothing...

this isn't debate, it's chaos

originally posted by: benrl
I read this before, it bodes well for our future.

Academia in the US has become a freak show of non productive thought and education.

That's what you get when teaching to pass a test and the system throws critical thinking out the window.

a reply to: FortAnthem

When did formalized academic debate of a topic degenerate into Jerry Springer? Our Education System is hopelessly adrift when stuff like this passes for real debate. Remind me to cross off those schools for my Son's upcoming College decision.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000


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..

See my post on page 2 of this thread. I was involved with this for nine years, and I assure you the debate community knows that outsiders, even there school administrators would be appalled by what goes on. But they are ok with that because they assume they are better than everyone.

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.

CEDA is an organization, and the game itself is called policy debate. There are other organizations such as the NDT (National Debate Tournament) the ADA (American Debate Association) and others that are all policy debate. There are other forms of debate such as Parlimentary, Lincoln Douglas, etc. but CEDA is Policy, which is the biggest and most competitive style (well that may be changing).

CEDA was started as an attempt to allow more novices to compete by trying to root out things like the fast talking, reliance on all rounds discussing nuclear war and other things. The problem is that if you are a policy debater, you don't just go to one organizations tournament, you go to them all (maybe an ADA one week and CEDA the next).

The organizations rules are COMPLETELY ignored. The most unusual part of debate is that all of the rules are up for debate. So if you say hey thats not what we are supposed to be talking about, they will say you are silencing there voice and because the community is so liberal, you will lose.

So CEDA accomplished nothing that it set out to do, because people still did the same things and argued the rules didn't matter.

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.

The community was made up of mostly wealthy liberal white men. They have for years asked themselves why women and minorities didn't participate more. This in its own right is a fair question to ask, but the result has been a travesty. Now the rules are totally meaningless, and as I said on page two of this thread to defend being a white male is just about an automatic loss.

As a judge, I was literally one of only a handful in the community that would vote against a team for refusing to debate the topic. I was routinely called a racist, bigot, sexist, and was threatened with violence more than once. I was also told at one point that their judges would never vote for teams I worked with regardless of their arguments because of me.

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.

The topic is decided on before the year, and each team gets to vote for the one they chose. The problem is it is almost entirely ignored by many teams such as in the op.

Try coaching some freshmen that grew up on a farm. You spend a month telling them about presidential war powers, and the pros and cons of it. They walk into their first debate and there opponent stands up and yells, "Why haven't you acknowledge your privilege as a white man?" and then proceeds to call them a racist for two hours.

Because of this, the community is thankfully dying. Although more minorities and women are participating, the net result is new people just aren't interested. But instead of acknowledging the problem, the community just chalks it up to being to smart for the regular people.

a reply to: Grambler

I appreciate your input on this. I had read your note and it's part of what motivated me to look a bit more. It sounded like the sort of thing some might just make up to make others look bad. It was disheartening to find it was all legitimate and the youtube video wasn't necessarily unique or even special in the overall sense. Just....a sign of the times, and it's almost depressing to watch it turn around us.

So 'Policy' is the style we're seeing there and not descriptive of the topics or focus of the debates? I haven't been real clear on that, but that seems to be what you're saying. Parliamentary seemed to be the closest to what we do around here, when heavy sourcing and fact checking is going into the posts. Unless I really misunderstood what I read about it, that seemed like what I'd probably enjoy as an intellectual challenge.

What the video showed isn't a challenge in anything but tolerance and patience. If I went to see a debate and it turned into that, as someone not accustomed to performance art (essentially) being mixed into topical content, I believe I'd just walk out. I suppose I CAN appreciate the effort they still put into it for the show/performance aspect. Nothing in public speaking or performing is necessarily easy unless someone is born with it.

Still.... I really appreciate the skill of jugglers with insanely dangerous objects at carnivals and boardwalks too. I'd also say they had a time and place. If someone called them for a child's birthday party, I think my reaction would be very similar, albeit for different reasons.

When I think debate...I think vigorous and impassioned discussion of a topic which both sides have put serious time into learning for the position taken or assigned. It just leaves me speechless....pun intended...to think folks just throw the whole concept out the window, keep the name 'debate' for the vague similarity it still holds, and basically have expressive performance art with social commentary while seemingly wondering why anyone would question the ..ahem..difference.

That last bit in the OP article about the lone voice for actual focused topic debate being among schools 'too white' and too few to make it work, as the reason they just canceled it really floored me. So...where DO we go for the actual debate that used to be, but simply carries the title now?

a reply to: FortAnthem

That video is utterly ridiculous. I couldn't help but laugh. Debate?

Once again, reality has moderately surprised me by manifesting itself as a parody of life.

If anything, these "debate" champions are an homage to how absurd the PC racial privilege has become. No real preparation, no educated discourse, no point and counterpoint... just two poorly-educated and poorly-spoken future problems frothing at the mouth, using words that other races are not allowed to, on their way to an undeserved racial handout trophy.

The prize should have been food stamps and a meeting with Obama to rant about redistribution of wealth. That's not racist, that's reality.

I will now work and detach from my culture for yet another day in an effort to avoid disgust.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Grambler

I appreciate your input on this. I had read your note and it's part of what motivated me to look a bit more. It sounded like the sort of thing some might just make up to make others look bad. It was disheartening to find it was all legitimate and the youtube video wasn't necessarily unique or even special in the overall sense. Just....a sign of the times, and it's almost depressing to watch it turn around us.

It is a sign of the times. I think you mentioned you are in or went to college, so you know how liberal academia is. (BTW I in no way am totally against liberalism, I am just against it being forced on people in the academic world with no fair time given to alternatives). This community is the most extreme of academia, and so even as some one not interested in Policy debate it is a good look on how perverse a group can become when there ideology is unchecked, and I think a good foreshadowing into what academia and politics will be.

So 'Policy' is the style we're seeing there and not descriptive of the topics or focus of the debates? I haven't been real clear on that, but that seems to be what you're saying. Parliamentary seemed to be the closest to what we do around here, when heavy sourcing and fact checking is going into the posts. Unless I really misunderstood what I read about it, that seemed like what I'd probably enjoy as an intellectual challenge.

Parliamentary is based on British parliament. It is less ridiculous and was created as an answer to the craziness of Policy debate. The way you sound, professionalism, etc all matter in parli. The round in the OP would never happen in Parli.

It does however not have "heavy sourcing". In fact using evidence is discouraged. You are supposed to be arguing as a laymen on the topic with only knowledge that the average person would have. For example, lets say we are debating global warming. I could say "Scientist say that in the next twenty years sea levels will substantially rise" but I couldn't say "According to a study by the Global warming Ass. last year, sea level will rise by .003 inches a year".

What the video showed isn't a challenge in anything but tolerance and patience. If I went to see a debate and it turned into that, as someone not accustomed to performance art (essentially) being mixed into topical content, I believe I'd just walk out. I suppose I CAN appreciate the effort they still put into it for the show/performance aspect. Nothing in public speaking or performing is necessarily easy unless someone is born with it.

I remember the first round I saw like that. I had been debating for a month and was practicing "flowing" (which is the way you are taught to take notes on a round since it is done at such an incredible speed). The round was very similar to the op. After the second speech, a coach that was watching (who mind you look liked he had just left a Phish concert) asked me how my notes were coming and a large group started laughing at me. The joke was the notes are worthless. I was a square that wass trying to keep up with there superior intellect (or so they thought).

There is no skill in this. In fact, many teams just have there coaches write there speeches out before the round. They can do this because they don't have to respond to you, your argument doesn't matter, only their race or sex or gender etc. matters. So if you are a novice just tryng to learn, you are not debating a novice, but the words of their coach who has done this their whole life.

When I think debate...I think vigorous and impassioned discussion of a topic which both sides have put serious time into learning for the position taken or assigned. It just leaves me speechless....pun intended...to think folks just throw the whole concept out the window, keep the name 'debate' for the vague similarity it still holds, and basically have expressive performance art with social commentary while seemingly wondering why anyone would question the ..ahem..difference.

Exactly. I loved the idea of debate, a community where regardless how you look or where you come from only your ideas mattered (much like ATS). But in the name of PC it has been ruined.

That last bit in the OP article about the lone voice for actual focused topic debate being among schools 'too white' and too few to make it work, as the reason they just canceled it really floored me. So...where DO we go for the actual debate that used to be, but simply carries the title now?

This is a great question. One of my former coaches was one of the ones that tried to have a topic focused tournament. He has basically been outcast from the community. There is no place to go at this point because one of two things will happen.

1. You are accused of being elitist and racist and so no one will want to come to your tournament for fear of being associated with you.

2. The tournament will occur, but teams like in the OP will show up and still dominate because people will be afraid to vote against them else they be labeled a racist.

Maybe I will start a topic on collegiate debate some day. I could tell you dozens of stories of insane rounds and how far it has fallen. But suffice it to say it is important for several reasons, because it foreshadows what the rest of the world may become as mentioned above, and because debate is the cornerstone of knowledge.

If debate can be controlled so that facts and logic are no longer necessary then how can we decide what policies, philosophies etc. we should follow. Only the people in powers thoughts will be heard.

a reply to: thedeadtruth

I wish I could agree, but materially that is not 100% true, part of it concerning the slaves is in a monolithic statement like that , which cannot be completely proven, is somewhat irresponsible, it's been also proven that many of the slaves were taken forcibly have you done any extensive research on this subject or are you just being a parrot? Thomas Paine had some things to say about this back then in an Essay he wrote, and he actually did have a little closer knowledge of situation and that same excuse that you just offered he says is not so true either , again one of the untruths being put out there to minimize a wrong, even on both sides, two wrongs would never make a right, ever, both buyers or sellers, whose interest is above the others, the ones that were sold would definitely place blame on both sets set of shoulders.
There is a a huge difference between someone that willfully leaves their country in search of something better than someone that had no choice in the matter to take a perilous transatlantic voyage chained in the hull of a slaveship, no suitcases, no greetings at Ellis or anything of that sort, to clarify, those particular individuals were not immigrants.

originally posted by: benrl
I read this before, it bodes well for our future.

Academia in the US has become a freak show of non productive thought and education.

Who has to wait for the future?




If a politician isn't tied by the hip to the CIA (bush, clinton, obama), they have to possess a single-digit IQ to be in government today.

originally posted by: benrl
I read this before, it bodes well for our future.

Academia in the US has become a freak show of non productive thought and education.

...and don't forget the amateur comedy.

When someone has nothing intelligent to say, they make some meaningless joke and are usually praised for being so clever.

Happens constantly.

You are actually one of them.

Aint ya?

a reply to: applesthateatpeople
when I was in college many of my classes were about an hour of my liberal proffs spouting their liberal agenda and ignoring the subject they were supposed to be teaching. Tenure needs to be abolished.

That was honestly terrible. Based on the interview, they appear to be capable of speaking coherently, so why not just do that? Was it a requirement of the debate? If so, what a stupid requirement. How can people weigh the arguments when they can't even understand them? Quality over quantity. The rap guys were pretty bad too, but at least they were a bit more understandable.

Another thing, why the use of slang and profanity? There aren't any places for words like that in debates (as far as I know of). I thought the debates where you're forced to take a position contrary to your own were bad enough, and then something like this comes along. I just hope this is the exception and not the rule.

On a related note, I wouldn't recommend looking at the comments on that video.

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.

Snipped your quote to address this part. I did not hear any of that in the "debate." How did the judges decide either team made those points?

well in order too persuade the "New Generation" , VOTE,,
i can not wait too see the new "PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE'S",,

hey ya have too keep up,,,so lets try that new debating style,,,1, 2,, 3,, gooooo

I think this is some sort of deconstruction/bare-bones approach to debating,

These tactics are used by other debaters, by "Tea-Partiers", by Social-Justice-(gender/ethnic based)-hippies, "gun"-nuts, "anti-gun"-nuts (strangely not by anti-"gun nuts" though they tend not to get media attention), etc.

The only difference between them is that these girls forget the frilly/filler bits and just stick with the hard ones; shout louder that your opponent, act passionate, don't acknowledge the debate/change the subject altogether to something you can argue about.

I find it odd I'm the one of the few seeing this

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
I think this is some sort of deconstruction/bare-bones approach to debating,

These tactics are used by other debaters, by "Tea-Partiers", by Social-Justice-(gender/ethnic based)-hippies, "gun"-nuts, "anti-gun"-nuts (strangely not by anti-"gun nuts" though they tend not to get media attention), etc.

The only difference between them is that these girls forget the frilly/filler bits and just stick with the hard ones; shout louder that your opponent, act passionate, don't acknowledge the debate/change the subject altogether to something you can argue about.

I find it odd I'm the only one seeing this

ahghhhhh
SO WHY ARE THERE JUDGES???
if there are no rules too be followed?

a reply to: BobAthome

to judge of course, debate still ideally has some sort of pseudo-moral/philosphical code... but the world is not an ideal place...

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName
www.bbc.co.uk...

"Disraeli and Gladstone were both politicians of extraordinary ability - but their ... Their style of debate was as different as their personalities."



"Gladstone and Disraeli: Clash of the Titans"

so how far we have fallen.why?
i mean that was 200 years ago???
i dont see an improvement???
anyone?

a reply to: BobAthome

well; arguement and oration seem to take a very long time to change as it's a very old thing to do;.