"Hacking Traditional College's White Privilege Work"

[Sheilbh]

It's decided by the house. If they do it convincingly they'll win. So probably a fair few.

Edit: Though there are, as in the US apparently, other styles. There is one that's American in approach emphasising substance over style but it's niche.

[derspiess]

I posted a video a year ago of one of these "debates".  I think this was it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY

I actually think this thing has a place on university campuses for those who are entertained or informed by it.  But it needs to be more appropriately billed as performance art or "Competitive Spewing of Black Grievances", not debate.

[Admiral Yi]

It's decided by the house. If they do it convincingly they'll win. So probably a fair few.

This is a very stylish way of saying you don't know.

[grumbler]

Debating always has been here. It's based on Westminster/Oxford/Cambridge union so what matters most is convincing style not citing studies. Style matters far more than substance.

But that's not tournament debating.  It's a completely different animal.  It's performance, not debate.  It's a fine thing, but not relevant to the issue in the OP.

[Sheilbh]

It's decided by the house. If they do it convincingly they'll win. So probably a fair few.

This is a very stylish way of saying you don't know.

Of course I don't know. I did some debating at high school but never at uni which is where you get the competitions. I would be astonished if someone hasn't tried this and, if you can, convincingly, change the subject then I think by some distance you're the better debater.   

But that's not tournament debating.  It's a completely different animal.  It's performance, not debate.  It's a fine thing, but not relevant to the issue in the OP.

Sure (though I'd argue debate is performance, I don't think the persuasive, performance element of an argument isn't part of it or somehow lesser). As I say I think there's room for both of these approaches of debate and if these kids are basically changing for the tournaments of this organisation then fair play to them.

I personally hold that most of my thoughts are stupid and most of my feelings are irrational. Now I now that I am only speaking for myself but glancing around everybody else does not seem that much different. The humanities is supposed to be about separating the wheat from the chaff but instead it does seem like they want to enable everybody to go with it. This may not necessarily be a bad thing, they are trying to get more voices and points of view in there and, perhaps, it will eventually get back to trying to discuss things rationally.

The approach I always got in a humanities-ish (arts) education was that what mattered most was having and constructing an argument. That's what a humanities education is about to me.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course I don't know. I did some debating at high school but never at uni which is where you get the competitions. I would be astonished if someone hasn't tried this and, if you can, convincingly, change the subject then I think by some distance you're the better debater.   

OK, did the winning team in any of your high debates say "I don't want to talk about that, I'd rather talk about this?"

[Sheilbh]

It was over ten years ago. As I say I'd be astonished if no-one's won a debate by changing the subject or attacking the premise of the question.

[grumbler]

Sure (though I'd argue debate is performance, I don't think the persuasive, performance element of an argument isn't part of it or somehow lesser). As I say I think there's room for both of these approaches of debate and if these kids are basically changing for the tournaments of this organisation then fair play to them.

Yes.  As I noted, the dysfunction is in the organizers of the debate, not in the participants.  If you won't require your judges to evaluate debates based on the ground rules you have established (the scoring system in every debate competition I have seen is available to the students ahead of time) than the fault lies with you, the organizer.  It would be like a soccer game in which the refs won't penalize grabbing the ball; if a team wins by grabbing the ball and running it into the goal, then the fault is on the organizers, not the players.  The players are competing to win. 

[Admiral Yi]

 

OK Shelf.

[Admiral Yi]

Although as a parting shot I would like to point out that the example given in the OP about attacking the premise had absolutely nothing to do with attacking a premise.

[Sheilbh]

Yes.  As I noted, the dysfunction is in the organizers of the debate, not in the participants.  If you won't require your judges to evaluate debates based on the ground rules you have established (the scoring system in every debate competition I have seen is available to the students ahead of time) than the fault lies with you, the organizer.  It would be like a soccer game in which the refs won't penalize grabbing the ball; if a team wins by grabbing the ball and running it into the goal, then the fault is on the organizers, not the players.  The players are competing to win.

Yep. And to use your sporting analogy thus rugby.

Now the organisers should codify the changes.

Although as a parting shot I would like to point out that the example given in the OP about attacking the premise had absolutely nothing to do with attacking a premise.

Sure they did.

OK Shelf.

Ain't my fault you prefer fact-spewing over trying to convince

[Admiral Yi]

Sure they did.

What was the premise and how did they attack it?

[Sheilbh]

Sure they did.

What was the premise and how did they attack it?

Should the President's war powers be restricted? The question is pointless, talking about restricting war powers of one branch, when the entire apparatus of the US government is making war on African-Americans.

[LaCroix]

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.

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.

makes sense. better competitions focus more on substance. the competition i'm thinking about is not exactly well run, and substance hardly mattered. if you accidentally conceded your issue but performed well, oh well.

[Admiral Yi]

Should the President's war powers be restricted? The question is pointless, talking about restricting war powers of one branch, when the entire apparatus of the US government is making war on African-Americans.

But that's not a premise of the question.