Posted on 01/29/2019 7:41:11 PM PST by fuzzylogic
Weep for our culture. You won't believe what you hear. Get past the beginning "speed argument" - listen to the whole "shut up you're white so you're racist" message. What is missed is that they're creating a generation of kids that are FAR more politically aware than I was. This kid NAILS IT. Impressed!!!!
“Their position is not built on Reason, therefore you cannot use Reason to argue them out of their position.”
This is 100% correct. As their position are based on emotion, only emotion will change their position.
“Psychological violence”...what a bunch of pu***es
One of the many blessings in my life was participating in high school and college debate teams. At tournaments like the one where the debate in this article took place, each participating team provides a judge that the tournament organizers assign to judge the various debates. I judged many dozens, maybe hundreds of high school debates, and it was very simple to let what the debaters said determine who did the better job of debating (and that was the explicit bottom line, preprinted on most ballots, in deciding which team won the debate). If one team ignores an argument posed by the other, and the debaters asserted a particular impact for that argument, the judge would have clear reason to accept the assertions of the only team that discussed that argument, even if the judge had strong personal feelings about the argument.
Interesting, thanks for the input. I’ve no experience whatsoever regarding such debate formats.
So this debate in question seems to completely violate the premise you define. The judge is declaring what arguments are even allowed to be made, which is a complete interference in the intended process.
The guy that was presenting has since posted some additional Youtube video’s due to the responses he’s received.
Yes, in stopping the round, the judge in this debate acted quite differently than any judge I knew of in my years of debating and coaching (1968-1976). The judge’s discussion with the debaters in the video seems to be after he decided to stop the debate, so his comments seem better characterized as explaining his decision rather than substituting his arguments for what was said by the debaters. In the mid-1970s, the National Debate Tournament started requiring judges to write a short description of their judging philosophy. The descriptions were compiled into a printed document and distributed to the participating teams. As best I recall, all or almost all the judges saw their role as being a “blank slate” at the beginning of each debate. “Tabula Rosa” was a phrase judges often used to label this approach. The video doesn’t show what went on in most of the debate.
I watched this a while ago. What was most disturbing to me was at the end where they were in an office? or somewhere and expressing their frustration and questions to a couple of three adults. What was scary was that the consensus seemed to be that they would have to change the rules of debate in order to accommodate the social justice movement. They were saying things like “We’re in new territory here”. And “We’re going to have adapt to this new paradigm”. The debate is already lost when you can’t have civil debate because someone objects to the topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.