QuoteIt used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you'd see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, they'd recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.
No more.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These "alternative-style" debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
But this transformation has also sparked a difficult, often painful controversy for a community that prides itself on handling volatile topics.
On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president's war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.
In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like "nigga authenticity" and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee's rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. "Fuck the time!" he yelled. His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, had been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before, and cited this experience as evidence for his case against the government's treatment of poor African-Americans.
This year wasn't the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.
Tournament participants from all backgrounds say they have found some of these debate strategies offensive. Even so, the new style has received mainstream acceptance, sympathy, and awards.
Joe Leeson Schatz, Director of Speech and Debate at Binghamton University, is encouraged by the changes in debate style and community. "Finally, there's a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others," he said. "Arguments don't necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experience."
But other teams who have prepared for a traditional policy debate are frustrated when they encounter a meta-debate, or an alternative stylistic approach in competition. These teams say that the pedagogical goals of policy debate are not being met—and are even being undermined. Aaron Hardy, who coaches debate at Northwestern University, is concerned about where the field is headed. "We end up ... with a large percentage of debates being devoted to arguing about the rules, rather than anything substantive," he wrote on a CEDA message board last fall.
Critics of the new approach allege that students don't necessarily have to develop high-level research skills or marshal evidence from published scholarship. They also might not need to have the intellectual acuity required for arguing both sides of a resolution. These skills—together with a non-confrontational presentation style—are considered crucial for success in fields like law and business.
Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. "Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs," he said.
To counter this trend, Hardy and his allies want to create a "policy only" space in which traditional standards for debate will be enforced. However, this is nearly impossible to do within the two major debate associations, CEDA and the National Debate Tournament (NDT), as they are governed by participants and have few conduct enforcement mechanisms. For instance, while CEDA and NDT's institutional anti-harassment policy would normally prohibit the term "nigga" as it was used at the recent Indiana University tournament finals, none of the judges penalized the competitors that used it. In fact, those debaters took home prizes.
14 schools expressed interest in sending debaters to Hardy's proposed alternative tournament, scheduled to occur last month. But after word got out that a group of mostly white teams from elite universities were trying to form their own league, Hardy and his supporters were widely attacked on Facebook and other online forums. Ultimately the competition didn't happen, purportedly because of logistical issues with the hotel venue. Nonetheless, Hardy wrote in an email that a "toxic climate" has precluded even "strong supporters of 'policy debate' from "publicly attach[ing] their name to anything that might get them called racist or worse."
Korey Johnson, the reigning CEDA champion from Towson University, was one of the students who took offense the alternative tournament. "Segregating debate is a bad move," she said.* "With the increase in minority participation came a range of different types of argument and perspectives, not just from the people who are in debate, but the kind of scholarship we bring in." Her debate partner Ameena Ruffin agreed: "For them to tell us that we can't bring our personal experience, it would literally be impossible. Not just for black people—it is true of everyone. We are always biased by who we are in any argument."
Liberal law professors have been making this point for decades. "Various procedures—regardless of whether we're talking about debate formats or law—have the ability to hide the subjective experiences that shape these seemingly 'objective' and 'rational' rules," said UC Hastings Law School professor Osagie Obasogie, who teaches critical race theory. "This is the power of racial subordination: making the viewpoint of the dominant group seem like the only true reality."
Hardy disagrees. "Having minimal rules is not something that reflects a middle-class white bias," he said. "I think it is wildly reductionist to say that black people can't understand debate unless there is rap in it—it sells short their potential." He said he is committed to increasing economic and racial diversity in debate and has set up a nonprofit organization to fundraise for minority scholarships.
According to Joe Leeson Schatz, one of the unstated reasons for trying to set up policy-only debates is that once-dominant debate teams from colleges like Harvard and Northwestern are no longer winning the national competitions. "It is now much easier for smaller programs to be successful," he said. "You don't have to be from a high budget program; all you need to win is just a couple of smart students." Schatz believes that the changes in college debate are widening the playing field and attracting more students from all backgrounds.
Paul Mabrey, a communications lecturer at James Madison University and CEDA vice president, is organizing a conference for this coming June that will address the college debate diversity problem. "The debate community is broken," he declared, "but there is nothing wrong with that. We talk about a post-racial America, but we shouldn't elide our real differences, we should talk about how to work across and work with these differences."
One thing is clear: In a community accustomed to hashing out every possible argument, this particular debate will continue. The uncontested benefit of the debate format is that everyone receives equal time to speak, something that drew many minority students to debate in the first place, said Korey Johnson. "No matter how people feel about my argument, they have to listen to me for all of my speeches, everything I have to say, they can't make me stop speaking," she said.
http://m.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/?utm_source=SFFB
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Wait not answering the question and instead repeating talking points they want to say instead? Sounds like these people are destined for political office.
Stuff like this makes me weep. Sometimes it seems the humanities are truly consuming themselves with idiocy, leading to their total irrelevance and divorce from reality.
Though I do wonder if this will lead to more white debaters rapping so then people can be enraged about cultural appropriation.
It would appear that talking smack is now an organized sport.
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:17:09 AM
Stuff like this makes me weep. Sometimes it seems the humanities are truly consuming themselves with idiocy, leading to their total irrelevance and divorce from reality.
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.
Maybe. Or maybe the crazy train will just go to more fantastic and entertaining venues.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 08:22:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:17:09 AM
Stuff like this makes me weep. Sometimes it seems the humanities are truly consuming themselves with idiocy, leading to their total irrelevance and divorce from reality.
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.
Maybe. Or maybe the crazy train will just go to more fantastic and entertaining venues.
I am sometimes tempted to reply to these types "yeah, you convinced me, logical thinking and rationality are exclusively White Male subjects. That means, if you want to get anything done in this world requiring logic and rationality, you had better go to a certified genuine White Male; if you just want a personal rant, go somewhere else".
I doubt that would go over too well, though. ;)
This issue was a lot more interesting the first few times we brought this up. Any reason to be quoting a year-old article as though it was news?
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 08:40:02 AM
This issue was a lot more interesting the first few times we brought this up. Any reason to be quoting a year-old article as though it was news?
Was it? I know we discussed this for the 2013 incident mentioned in the shockingly old year-old article but I do not recall it being more interesting. Just the same level of interesting.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 08:40:02 AM
This issue was a lot more interesting the first few times we brought this up. Any reason to be quoting a year-old article as though it was news?
Hell, at this point I would have thought a year was but a blink of the eye. :P
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:50:24 AM
Hell, at this point I would have thought a year was but a blink of the eye. :P
Okay, Mister Buddha. :P
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:17:09 AM
Stuff like this makes me weep. Sometimes it seems the humanities are truly consuming themselves with idiocy, leading to their total irrelevance and divorce from reality.
I admit I was surprised he was named. His appearances on the Daily Show were mostly not that great. I didn't even think he was someone they would reasonably consider.
So far, from what I've seen, he just isn't very funny. He is an accomplished comedian though, so perhaps he is very funny doing stand up? Has to be something there...
Berkut is attacking the premise of the thread!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Berkut is attacking the premise of the thread!
Fuck the time! Or thread topic.
Berkut has wandered into the wrong theater.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 31, 2015, 10:38:42 AM
Berkut has wandered into the wrong theater.
...and shouted "fire!"
Berkut's First Amendment rights: not applicable!
Wait is the wrong theater crowded?
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 11:44:55 AM
Wait is the wrong theater crowded?
Not after he shouted 'fire!"
Sorry, I am kind of frazzled when it comes to race stuff on Languish after I made Seedy rage quit. :(
:lol:
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 31, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
:lol:
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 31, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
:lol:
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.
Debate is about winning. Good for the winners that they debate well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 08:20:10 AM
It would appear that talking smack is now an organized sport.
Hasn't debate been an organized sport for a while now?
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2015, 01:53:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 01:57:28 PM
Hasn't debate been an organized sport for a while now?
Different.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2015, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2015, 01:53:23 PM
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.
If you want to take on The Man, then you must first master his weapons to use them against him.
Quote from: Warspite on March 31, 2015, 02:15:53 PM
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.
Wait these guys wear dashikis? How adorable.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 02:35:53 PM
Wait these guys wear dashikis? How adorable.
:angry:
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 02:37:53 PM
:angry:
Sorry it reminds me of pictures of my dad's friends from the 1970s.
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2015, 02:02:49 PM
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.
There's a lot to this. The dysfunction doesn't come from the students, but from the organizers. The wining teams are just doing what they need to do in order to win. If that's not really debate, what do they care?
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 02:40:40 PM
There's a lot to this. The dysfunction doesn't come from the students, but from the organizers. The wining teams are just doing what they need to do in order to win. If that's not really debate, what do they care?
Well right once you can throw subjective experience out there what is there to debate? 'No your experience is wrong?'
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2015, 02:02:49 PM
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.
There's a lot to this. The dysfunction doesn't come from the students, but from the organizers. The wining teams are just doing what they need to do in order to win. If that's not really debate, what do they care?
From a competitive position, sure.
Assuming that debating as an activity has some educational/training component, OTOH ... this type of "argument" isn't going to translate very well into other contexts.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 02:40:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 02:37:53 PM
:angry:
Sorry it reminds me of pictures of my dad's friends from the 1970s.
I have my father's from the 70s. :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
Assuming that debating as an activity has some educational/training component, OTOH ... this type of "argument" isn't going to translate very well into other contexts.
The question of whether or not my client Mr. Chen committed a patent infringement is not the issue, it is the treatment of Asian-Americans by US Patent law! *poetry slam breaks out*
See? It can be applied.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 02:48:44 PM
I have my father's from the 70s. :blush:
:lol: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 02:55:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
Assuming that debating as an activity has some educational/training component, OTOH ... this type of "argument" isn't going to translate very well into other contexts.
The question of whether or not my client Mr. Chen committed a patent infringement is not the issue, it is the treatment of Asian-Americans by US Patent law!
See? It can be applied.
I'm sure that argument would work a treat. :lol:
Can't wait to try it here on a Prothonotary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 08:20:10 AM
It would appear that talking smack is now an organized sport.
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.
See the Economist. Written, mostly, by very young journos with a very convincing union debate style, and sells very well as an 'authorative' voice.
This sounds if nothing else interesting, which may be a good thing especially if there's different debating schools with different approaches.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:15:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 08:20:10 AM
It would appear that talking smack is now an organized sport.
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.
See the Economist. Written, mostly, by very young journos with a very convincing union debate style, and sells very well as an 'authorative' voice.
This sounds if nothing else interesting, which may be a good thing especially if there's different debating schools with different approaches.
About as interesting as watching one team absolutely
dominating at soccer when the other team is playing basketball. :D
It would be more fun if both sides were debating, no doubt. Time for the fact-spewing robots to catch up :P
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2015, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2015, 01:53:23 PM
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.
You could do the old debate gambit of "Teehee you may win this shitty debate but we are not the ones getting shot for wearing a hoodie". :nelson:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:15:12 PM
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.
See the Economist. Written, mostly, by very young journos with a very convincing union debate style, and sells very well as an 'authorative' voice.
This sounds if nothing else interesting, which may be a good thing especially if there's different debating schools with different approaches.
How many debates were won by teams that decided they didn't like the topic assigned and picked another one, stylishly?
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:29:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:15:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:29:00 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:55:20 PM
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?"
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 03:55:20 PM
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.
:D
OK Shelf.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 04:12:02 PM
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.
QuoteAlthough 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.
QuoteOK Shelf.
Ain't my fault you prefer fact-spewing over trying to convince :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:15:59 PM
Sure they did.
What was the premise and how did they attack it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 04:16:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:15:59 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 12:46:57 PMIn 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2015, 12:49:45 PMI 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. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
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.
I wonder . . . if one rewrote the history of the Civil Rights movement, such that existing institutions were eschewed as irremediable bastions of racist privilege. So no Brown v. Board, no Shelley v. Kraemer, no Heart of Atlanta Motel. No Voting Rights Act - for that matter no voting, or running for office, what's the point? No 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Doesn't seem that alternative history is a really good one.
Good map though.
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:17:09 AM
Stuff like this makes me weep. Sometimes it seems the humanities are truly consuming themselves with idiocy, leading to their total irrelevance and divorce from reality.
"Sometimes"? "Leading to"?
I think I'd be good at this kind of debate, though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 04:16:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:15:59 PM
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.
Other than a spurious link through the word 'war', that's more of a non sequitur than attacking the premise.
Quote from: Warspite on April 01, 2015, 06:51:28 AM
Other than a spurious link through the word 'war', that's more of a non sequitur than attacking the premise.
it's more of just about anything than it is attacking the premise. But, again, unless the referees punish refusal to debate the issue, teams who spend time on the intellectual heavy lifting rather than focusing on rhetorical showmanship will lose. It seems that this is the desired outcome among CEDA's membership, so those who want a different standard for competition will just need to go elsewhere. There is room for performance art competitions as well as intellectual debate competitions.
Now, it is irritating to see people try not only to encourage performance art but to actively discourage and shame intellectual debate, but that's social media for you.
Quote from: Warspite on April 01, 2015, 06:51:28 AM
Other than a spurious link through the word 'war', that's more of a non sequitur than attacking the premise.
Now see, I might have applauded if they had proceeded along the lines of "since the War Powers Act as not invoked to legitimize the government's war against blacks, it is irrelevant."
Quote from: Ideologue on March 31, 2015, 05:48:14 PM
I think I'd be good at this kind of debate, though.
Did you see the video? They'd eat you alive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2015, 09:29:33 AM
Quote from: Warspite on April 01, 2015, 06:51:28 AM
Other than a spurious link through the word 'war', that's more of a non sequitur than attacking the premise.
Now see, I might have applauded if they had proceeded along the lines of "since the War Powers Act as not invoked to legitimize the government's war against blacks, it is irrelevant."
That's no closer to attacking a premise than the tack they actually took. :mellow:
How about:
"The questionable hidden premise of this debate is that we can discuss the restriction of the President's war powers without reference to who the President happens to be - as if the Office mattered more than the man. This is false, and hides the reality - that, in America, the fact of the President's race matters as much or more than the office that he holds; a "Black President" is not the same as a "President", and any discussion of the restriction of the powers held by such a man must acknowledge that fact. It is pointless to assume, as this debate does, that offices are race-neutral, rather than to discuss the reality, which is that race is the single most significant factor ... " and go on from there.
I like yours too Malthus.
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2015, 10:29:40 AM
How about:
"The questionable hidden premise of this debate is that we can discuss the restriction of the President's war powers without reference to who the President happens to be - as if the Office mattered more than the man. This is false, and hides the reality - that, in America, the fact of the President's race matters as much or more than the office that he holds; a "Black President" is not the same as a "President", and any discussion of the restriction of the powers held by such a man must acknowledge that fact. It is pointless to assume, as this debate does, that offices are race-neutral, rather than to discuss the reality, which is that race is the single most significant factor ... " and go on from there.
That is an attack on a premise. It wouldn't help the arguments that the wining teams actually made, but it is an attack on a premise.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2015, 10:52:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2015, 10:29:40 AM
How about:
"The questionable hidden premise of this debate is that we can discuss the restriction of the President's war powers without reference to who the President happens to be - as if the Office mattered more than the man. This is false, and hides the reality - that, in America, the fact of the President's race matters as much or more than the office that he holds; a "Black President" is not the same as a "President", and any discussion of the restriction of the powers held by such a man must acknowledge that fact. It is pointless to assume, as this debate does, that offices are race-neutral, rather than to discuss the reality, which is that race is the single most significant factor ... " and go on from there.
That is an attack on a premise. It wouldn't help the arguments that the wining teams actually made, but it is an attack on a premise.
The idea is to gradually segue from that opening into a heated discussion of concepts like "nigga authenticity", complete with performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2015, 11:06:21 AM
The idea is to gradually segue from that opening into a heated discussion of concepts like "nigga authenticity",
We don't get enough of these discussions on Languish. Especially these days with Seedy gone :(
He had to take time away from Languish because he is coaching a debate team now.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2015, 11:47:11 AM
He had to take time away from Languish because he is coaching a debate team now.
:pinch:
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2015, 11:47:11 AM
He had to take time away from Languish because he is coaching a debate team now.
His teams attack the premise as well.
And they take "attack" a bit more literally than they should.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 04:16:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2015, 04:15:59 PM
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.
Whoa Shelf, that is a big humongus lie!
Siege is right. There is tentative cease fire in place with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
Siege is right. There is tentative cease fire in place with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
I know you are mocking me, but I don't really understand how.
What do you mean?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
Siege is right. There is tentative cease fire in place with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
USGPO is no joke!
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2015, 11:47:11 AM
He had to take time away from Languish because he is coaching a debate team now.
:pinch: