"Hacking Traditional College's White Privilege Work"

[Habbaku]

Berkut has wandered into the wrong theater.

[grumbler]

Berkut has wandered into the wrong theater.

...and shouted "fire!"

[Valmy]

Berkut's First Amendment rights: not applicable!

Wait is the wrong theater crowded?

[grumbler]

Wait is the wrong theater crowded?

Not after he shouted 'fire!"

[Berkut]

Sorry, I am kind of frazzled when it comes to race stuff on Languish after I made Seedy rage quit.

[LaCroix]

 

i love this. how often are these debates really judged on substance rather than performance? i've never been involved in a formal debate competition, so i don't know the answer. i have done moot court, which (i think) is like a debate competition for law students. substance goes straight out the window there. students might as well talk shit - if they do it well, why not give them the win.

[grumbler]

i love this. how often are these debates really judged on substance rather than performance? i've never been involved in a formal debate competition, so i don't know the answer. i have done moot court, which (i think) is like a debate competition for law students. substance goes straight out the window there. students might as well talk shit - if they do it well, why not give them the win.

In well-run debates, substance is all-important (in high-school-level inter-school debates, which I have judged for, substance is 3/4 of the grade).  CEDA has always been the "little brother' of the college debate world (despite now being the largest such organization) and has always been less concerned with substance than style, I think.  They grew by being more edgy and less "square" (and, to be fair to them, they almost always had more interesting topics), so the abandonment of the intellectual side of the debate process is more a matter of a change of emphasis than a change of objectives.

[crazy canuck]

i love this. how often are these debates really judged on substance rather than performance? i've never been involved in a formal debate competition, so i don't know the answer. i have done moot court, which (i think) is like a debate competition for law students. substance goes straight out the window there. students might as well talk shit - if they do it well, why not give them the win.

I have judged a number of moots.  The way we do it in national and international mooting competitions is that the substance of the argument is the most significant part being assessed.

[The Brain]

Debate is about winning. Good for the winners that they debate well.

[Maximus]

It would appear that talking smack is now an organized sport.

Hasn't debate been an organized sport for a while now?

[Berkut]

Debate is about winning. Good for the winners that they debate well.

This appears to be a case where some of the debaters correctly recognized that the judges would not have the balls to risk being called "RACIST!" if they shut down their attempt to hijack the topic, and hence "won" the debate by debating whatever it is they wanted, rather than the actual topic.

And of course, "whatever it is they wanted" was the cultural impact of race on themselves...which I am guessing the non-black debate team is not going to have much of a shot at competing against.

I mean, if you are just a couple of college guys or girls showing up for a debate competition, and the opposing team manages to shift the topic to "How We Have Been Screwed By Your Racist Culture", you really don't have much of a chance in that one.

[Admiral Yi]

Hasn't debate been an organized sport for a while now?

Different.

[The Brain]

Debate is about winning. Good for the winners that they debate well.

This appears to be a case where some of the debaters correctly recognized that the judges would not have the balls to risk being called "RACIST!" if they shut down their attempt to hijack the topic, and hence "won" the debate by debating whatever it is they wanted, rather than the actual topic.

And of course, "whatever it is they wanted" was the cultural impact of race on themselves...which I am guessing the non-black debate team is not going to have much of a shot at competing against.

I mean, if you are just a couple of college guys or girls showing up for a debate competition, and the opposing team manages to shift the topic to "How We Have Been Screwed By Your Racist Culture", you really don't have much of a chance in that one.

If you identify the jury as weak and ready to respond to bogus lines of argument, deliver those arguments and win the case then that's a job well done. Happy client.

[Warspite]

If you want to take on The Man, then you must first master his weapons to use them against him.

[grumbler]

If you want to take on The Man, then you must first master his weapons to use them against him.

I don't think that the extensive use of obscenities and the word "nigger" are the weapons of The Man any more.